
Glass. //£ * ¥-3 
Book Ji &>$«£* 



62d Congress, 

2d Session. 



SENATE. 



j Report 
| No. 907. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS IN THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. /, y / 

frCy 

July 13, 1912. — Referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds and 

ordered to be printed. 



Mr. Sutherland presented the following 
UN- 
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THE TITLE 
OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS IN THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA. 



The President of the Senate. 

Sir: The last preceding formal report of the Commission to Inves- 
tigate the Title of the United States to Lands in the District of 
Columbia to the Congress was made under date of June 16, 1910. 
During the session or Congress of 1910-11 several statements and 
recommendations as to legislation were made, and in order that a 
complete record of the work of the commission may be included in 
the congressional document series, it seems desirable that the present 
report should cover all the investigations subsequent to the report 
of June 16, 1910, which was printed as Senate Document No. 632 
of the second session of the Sixty-first Congress, notwithstanding 
that the results already have been placed, in part, before the Congress 
or its committees. 



REMAINING FROM FORMER REPORTS. 

At the date of the report above referred to investigation of the 
titles of certain parcels of land had not been completed. These were: 

1. As to division between original proprietors and the public, 
including the following squares: 



Square No. 3. 
Square west of No. 9. 
Square south of No. 22. 
Square opposite No. 300. 
Square No. 464. 
Square west of No. 472. 
Square west of No. 473. 
Square northwest of No. 492. 
Square No. 504. 
Square No. 521. 
Square No. 551. 
Square No. 553. 



Square No. 554. 
Square north of No. 563. 
Square No. 574. 
Square south of No. 612. 
Square south of No. 613. 
Square west of west of No. 
Square south of No. 708. 
Square No. 825. 
Square north of No. 853. 
Square No. 934. 
Square No. 983. 
Square No. 994. 



695. 



-7 



14 A 



/~\ 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



Square south of No. 1001. 
Square No. 1025. 
Square south of No. 1025. 
Square south of No. 1048. 
Square north of No. 1053. 
Square No. 1058. 
Square No. 1070. 
Square No. 1084. 
Square south of No. 1092. 



Square northeast of No. 1113 
Square south of No. 1117. 
Square No. 1124. 
Square No. 1131. 
Square No. 1147. 
Square No. 1148. 
Square No. 1149. 
Square south of No. 1149. 







\ 



"o 



y x 



2. As to conveyance by the United States of the following lots 
assigned to the public or apparently undivided: 



Part of square No. 2. 

Part of square No. 3. 

All of square west of No. 9. 

Square No. 22, lot 1. 

Square No. 57, lot 4. 

Square No. 63, lot 1. 

Square No. 74, lots 6, 9, and 10; parts of 

lots 5, 12, and 13. 
Square No. 80, lot 3. 
All of square No. 82. 
Square No. 86, lots 2 and 5. 
Square No. 163, lots 3 and 4. 
Square No. 116, lots 4, 5, and 20. 
Square No. 126, lots 28 and 29. 
Square No. 153, lot 8. 
Square No. 166, lot 20. 
Square No. 200, lots 8, 9, 10, and 11. 
Square No. 224, lots 8 and 9. 
Square No. 225, lots 1, 2, 3, 6, and 16. 
Square No. 253, lot 20. 
Square No. 254, lots 15, 19, and 20. 
All of square No. 266. 
Square No. 268, lots 6, 7, and 8. 
Square No. 387, lots 21-58. 
Square No. 406, lot 9. 
Square No. 433, lots 6 and 7. 
:Square No. 435, lots 13-18. 
Square No. 447, lot 20. 
Square No. 456, lot 6. 
Square No. 465, lot 82. 
Square No. 468, lots 6, 7, 15, 19, and 

26—28 
Square No. 469, lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 11-24, 

and 33. 
Square No. 498, lots 3-11, 13> 14, 15, 17, 

and 25-32. 
Square No. 502, lot 71. 
Square No. 503, lots 38, 44. 



Square No. 551, lots 8 and 9. 

Square No. 568, lot 21. 

Square No. 578, lot 2. 

All of square No. 591. 

All of square west of No. 597. 

Square No. 634, lot 16. 

Square No. 667, lot 6. 

Square south of No. 667, lots 7, 8, 9, 

and 12. 
All of square east of south of south of No. 

667. 
Square No. 681, lot 16. 
Square south of No. 708, lot 4. 
Square No. 728, lots 6 and 9. 
Square No. 787, lot 12. 
Part of square No. 825. 
Square No. 835, lot 7. 
Square No. 836, lot 12. 
Square north of No. 853, lots 2 and 4. 



Square No. 898, lots 1, 2, 3, 7-10, and 16. 

Square No. 921, lot 2. 

Square No. 941, lot 1. 

Square No. 945, lot 6. 

Square No. 965, lots 2, 7, and 8, and 

parts of lots 5 and 6. 
Square No. 985, lot 17. 
Square No. 996, lot 9. 
Part of square south of No. 1001. 
Square No. 1012, lot 2. 
Square north of No. 1026, lot 2. 
Square No. 1036, lots 6 and 11. 
Square No. 1041, lot 2. 
All of square south of No. 1048. 
All of square north of No. 1053. 
Square south of No. 1080, lot 1. 
Square No. 1105, lots 1, 2, and 20. 
Square No. 1113, lots 2, 3, and 4. 
Square No. 1132, lot 16. 






ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF DIVISION. 

It is now possible to state with reasonable certainty which of these 
parcels were and which were not formally divided between the 
commissioners of the city and the original proprietors. The effect of 
the action taken in division and of a failure to take or to record 
action has been discussed in the report already published. The. 
following paragraphs present the facts as to the action taken under 
the terms of the deed of trust and also the reasons to suppose, in 
certain cases, that action was either not taken or was not made a 
matter of record. 



in. 



ft 



4 

TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



Pi 



&\ Square south of No. 22. — This is not a formally recorded square of 
o& the city of Washington, but is a parallelogram of ground lying south 
tl of the location of upper Water Street and between Twenty-fifth and 
v^ Twenty-sixth Streets west. It was found that there was no record 
of this property either in the surveyor's office or the Office of Public 
Buildings and Grounds. The records of the Office of the Commis- 
sioners of the District of Columbia, however, showed that the land 
had formerly been used as a property yard, and since February 20, 
1894, had been occupied by private persons under a revocable permit 
from the commissioners. Examination of the original status of the 
property showed that at the time of the location of the city of Wash- 
ington this land was under water; that it was the submerged land 
referred to by Nicholas King m his letter to the commissioners of 
June 22, 1798, requesting a redivision of square 22 between Robert 
Peter and the public. The commissioners replied that they had 
already laid out a square on the location in question and had divided 
the same with the original proprietor and that their powers with 
reference to this property had been exhausted. Although there have 
been claims made of private ownership in this land the title seems 
certainly to be in the United States, both from the fact that it was 
originally part of the soil underlying the Potomac River, and the 
United States has given no authority for private claim thereto, and 
because it has been for more than 20 years in the undisputed posses- 
sion of the United States through the Commissioners of the District 
of Columbia and private persons holding authority from the latter. 
As the property was desirable for inclusion in the Potomac Park, the 
officer in charge of Public Buildings and Grounds, on being informed 
of the status of the title, made a request for the transfer of jurisdic- 
tion under the terms of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1898 
(30 Stats., 570), and on January 13, 1911, this commission was 
advised that such transfer had been perfected. 

The property is, therefore, now merged in Potomac Park, and 
should not be carried in the numerical list of squares. 

Opposite square 300. — This land is wharfing space between Twelfth 
and Thirteenth Streets S N, } and on the river side of Water Street. 
In consequence of the decision in the United States v. Morris et al., the 
title of this property was affirmed in the United States and it is now 
under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of the District of 
Columbia. 

Square No. 4-64- — Although there was no formal division of this 
square, and a proposed certificate of division in the Congressional 
Library collection is undated and unsigned, the evidence of the com- 
missioners' books is that the whole square went to the United States. 
In volume 1 of the calculations between the commissioners and 
original proprietors, under Notley Young's account, the square is 
entered as assigned to the public. Volume 10 of the calculations 
gives Daniel Carroll as entitled to 5,711 square feet and Notley 
Young to 16,714 square feet. In volume 11 page 99, Carroll is 
credited with 5,711 square feet in this square, and is not charged with 
any lots therein. At page 84 of the same volume, Young is credited 
with 16,714 feet and is not charged with any lots in this square. 
Their moieties having been made up by allotment of land in other 
squares, it follows that the whole of this square accrued to the public. 



4 TITLE OP THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

As shown on page 26 of the report of June 16, 1910, all of this square 
was sold by the United States. 

West of square Jf.72 and west of square 478. — This is wharf property 
on the river side of Water Street and title thereto was confirmed in 
the United States by the case of the United States v. Morris et al. 
The property is now under the jurisdiction of the District Commis- 
sioners. 

Square northwest of No. Jf.92. — This square was originally divided 
into two lots by a recorded instrument, November 5, 1796. Lot 1 
was assigned to the public to be sold, and lot 2 to Daniel Carroll. 
The lot assigned to the United States was sold to Samuel Elliott, jr., 
October 1, 1798 (Liber D, folio 222). In 1822 the low-grounds com- 
mission laid out reservation B, including the land occupied by this 
square, and, as shown by the proceedings of the low-grounds com- 
mission (p. 150), William A. Bradley and Greenleaf were in 

possession of the property. The above proceedings show that the 
commissioners assigned Bradley and Greenleaf lots 10, 11, 12, and 13 
in reservation D in compensation for their former holdings in square 
northwest of No. 492, thus eliminating this square from the plan of 
the city. 

Square No. 504. — There seems to have been no formal division of 
this square. In volume 1 of the books of calculations it is entered as 
belonging to the public. In volume 10 there is an entry that the 
division of this square is unsigned. This volume gives the moiety of 
the square due to Notley Young 49,540J square feet. On page 84 of 
volume 11 this number of square feet is credited to Young, and no 
charge is made against Young for lots assigned in this square. It 
seems established, therefore, that square No. 504 was assigned to the 
United States. As shown on page 27 of the report of June 16, 1910, 
all of this square was sold by the United States. 

Square No. 521 . — This square was never formally divided, although 
there is a signed division sheet dated August 28, 1799. This was 
prepared to assign lots 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12 to the public, lots 2, 4, 
and 6 to Samuel Blodget, and lots 7, 10, and 11 to Dominick Lynch 
and Comfort Sands. This sheet is indorsed on the back " Erroneous. 
The proprietors were Morris and Nicholson, or William Deakins, jr., 
and Samuel Blodget." 

There is a plat in the surveyor's books showing the division of this 
square into 12 lots. Four of these lots contained 9,340 square feet 
each and the other eight 5,837| square feet each. Calculation books, 
volumes 10 and 11, give the square as made up of 34,760 feet from Port 
Royal (original proprietor, William Deakins, trustee for Morris and 
Nicholson), and 49,279 square feet out of Jamaica (Samuel Blodget, 
original proprietor). This is a total of 84,039 square feet, but the 
square subdivided figures 84,060 square feet. Lots 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 
12 contain 42,030 square feet, which is the full claim of the United 
States to one-half of this square, leaving lots 2, 4, and 6 and lots 7, 
10, and 11 to be divided between Blodget and Deakins. Neither of 
these original proprietors are charged with lots in this square in vol- 
ume 11 of the calculations; but the account of neither of these pro- 
prietors was closed. Deakins's account (vol. 11, p. 91) shows a bal- 
ance of 205,371^ square feet due from the public, and Blodget's 
account (vol. 11, p. 56) shows a balance due to the public of 121,177 
square feet. There does not appear to be any interest of the United 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 5 

States in this square on account of division, as it received its full 
moiety and all of the public lots were sold to Thomas Corcoran August 
1, 1845. (Liber W. B., 120, folio 294.) 

Square No. 551. — There is no formal record of the division of this 
square, although there is a division sheet dated August 28, 1799, and 
signed by the commissioners. It assigns lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 24 to the public, and lots 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 
19 to Robert Morris and John Nicholson. No mention is made of 
lots 20, 21, 22, and 23, and there is an indorsement on the back "Not 
on record," with a pencil memorandum "Notley Young's lots left out 
in the division. Division wrongly entered." The omission as to 
Notley Young's interest is supplied by volumes 10 and 11 of the cal- 
culations and divisions with the original proprietors. In volume 10 
it appears that the square was derived in part from Notley Young's 
mill tract, of which 152,739| square feet went into square 551. This 
made Young entitled to 76,369| square feet, and in volume 11, page 
141, he is credited with 76, 332 \ square feet; the latter is slightly Less 
than his true credit, owing to an error in computation. On the same 
page Young is charged with lots 20, 21, 22, and 23, which, with the 
proportion of alleys, makes a total of 72,073f square feet which he 
received in square 551. 

Another portion of this square was derived from Morris and Nich- 
olson's tract of Port Royal. William Deakins, as trustee for Morris 
and Nicholson, was credited (vol. 11, p. 91) with 39,800 square feet, 
and charged with lots 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 19, a total, with the pro- 
portion of alleys, of 76,073| square feet. 

The rest of the square was. derived from Samuel Blodget's tract 
of Jamaica, of which 88,075 square feet were included in square 551. 
Blodget was credited (vol. 11, p. 56) with 44,017 square feet, a little 
less than his moiety, owing to an error in computation. His interest 
was satisfied by the allotment of land in other squares, as he still owed 
a balance of land to the public on the closing of his accounts. The 
division of this square was r therefore, as follows: 



Lot. 


Deakins. 


Young. 


Public. 


Lot. 


Deakins. 


Young. 


Public. 


1, 






11,000 
11,921 
13,755 
13,755 
13,790 


16 






8,515 


2 






17.. 






13,755 


3 






18... 






13,790 


4 






19... 


13,790 




5 






20 


20,071| 
12,846| 
10,334f 

23,678J 




6 


13,790 
13,755 




21 






7 






22 






8 




13,755 
8,515 


23 






9 






24 .. 




9,020 


10 


11,000 
8, 028| 
9, 093| 




Alleys 






11 






69, 457* 
6,616 


66,931}- 
5, 143| 


159,693| 
12,491^ 


12 






13 . 




9, 093| 
8,028f 
11,000 




14 






76,073* 


72,074f 


172,185 


15 















The United States was entitled to 160,225 square feet as its moiety 
in the square, and received 172,185 square feet. Its interest in this 
square, on division, therefore, appears to have been entirely satisfied, 
with a balance against the public and in favor of the original pro- 
prietors. 



6 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



Lot 23 was not assigned to the United States, but was sold by the 
United States to Paulus Thyson, November 14, 1865. (Liber B, M 
H., 8, folio 214.) 

Square No. 553. — There seems to have been no recorded division of 
this square. The entries in volumes 10 and 11 of the books of cal- 
culations are to the effect that the square was not divided, and there 
is a pencil memorandum that the balance due Notley Young's heirs 
of 35,200 square feet is to be paid out of squares 553 and 554. 

Square 553 was derived from Notley Young's mill tract, including 
94,575 square feet of that tract, and from Morris and Nicholson's 
tract of Port Eoyal, including 134,225 square feet of the last-named 
tract. This made the total area of the square 228,800 feet, of which 
the United States was entitled to 114,400 feet. Lots 1 to 6, inclu- 
sive, and 21 to 28, inclusive, were assigned to the United States, 
making 102,793 square feet in the lots and 11,005 feet in the alleys, 
a total of 113,798 square feet, which practically extinguished the 
right of the United States, on division, in this square. 

There is no positive record of the assignment of lots 7 to 20, inclu- 
sive. One of the earlier books of calculations — that of 1791-1796 — at 
page 12, notes that lots 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, in square 553, are 
assigned to Notley Young. Both Young and William Deakins, as 
trustee for Morris and Nicholson, were credited with their respec- 
tive moieties of land in this square, but were not charged with the 
assignment of any lots. 

The general assessment of taxes for 1803 (the earliest assessment 
book preserved) assesses lots 7-13 and lots 19 and 20 in this square 
to Morris and Nicholson's trustee, and lots 14-18 to Notley Young's 
heirs. The deed of division with Young (liber B, folio 609) is much 
mutilated, and the note of the division in the commissioners' records 
for 1791-1795 (p. 284) does not refer to square 553. The moiety which 
would have accrued to Young on division was 47,287J square feet, 
but he actually received, according to the assessment, 36,390 square 
feet, which would more than balance the amount due him on final 
account. Deakins, for Morris and Nicholson, was entitled to a moiety 
of 67, 112^ square feet, and received, according to the assessment, 
66,405 square feet. The various claims in the square seem, therefore, 
to have been settled, and the division has been listed as follows : 



Lot No. 


Public. 


Young. 


Morris 
and 

Nichol- 
son's 

trustee. 


Lot No. 


Public. 


Young. 


Morris 
and 

Nichol- 
son's 

trustee. 


1 


Sq.ft. 
8,100 
6,555 
7,695 
7,695 
7,695 
7,311* 


Sq.ft. 


Sq.ft. 


15 


Sq.ft. 


Sq.ft. 
8,100 
6,555 
7,695 
7,695 


Sq.ft. 


2 






16 






3 






17 






4 






18 






5 






19 




7,695 


6 






20 






7,312J 


7 




7,312* 

7,695 

7,695 

7,695 

6,555 

8,100 

6,345 


21 


7,3111 

7,695 

7,695 

7,695 

6,555 

8,100 

6,345 

6,345 






8 






22 






9 






23 






10 






24 






11 






25 






12 






26 






13 






27 






14 




6,345 


28 



















TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



Square No. 554- — There is no record of division of this square. 
There is a copy of a division sheet, however, dated September 3, 1796, 
and containing the signatures of commissioners and of William 
Deakins. This purported to assign the whole square to the public. 
There is nothing in the commissioners' books to carry out this assign- 
ment, and the entries in the calculation books are that the square was 
neither divided nor recorded. 

Square No. 554 was derived from Notley Young's mill tract, taking 
113,516^ square feet from this tract, and from Morris and Nicholson's 
tract of Port Royal, taking 190, 216^ square feet from the last-named 
tract, which made a total area of 303,733 square feet, of which the 
United States was entitled to 151, 866 \ square feet. Young and 
Deakins, the latter as trustee for Morris and Nicholson, were credited 
with their respective moieties in this square but were not charged 
with any lots therein. (In vol. 11 of the calculations.) The earlier 
calculation book of 1791-1796 (p. 12) gives the assignment of lots 
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 to Notley Young, making a total of 63,450 
square feet. 

The United States secured its full moiety of square 554, taking lots 
1 to 6, inclusive, and 22 to 30, inclusive, being the east half of the 
square, a total of 151,866^ square feet, extmguishing its interest, on 
division, in this square. A transaction with John Walker indicates 
that the west half of the square, containing lots 7 to 21, inclusive, 
was regarded as having been assigned the original proprietors. On 
January 23, 1845, a deed was given to John Walker for the whole 
square. (Liber W. B., 115, p. 293.) February 2, 1846, Walker 
reconveyed the west half of the square to the commissioners of the 
city on the ground that the former conveyance of more than the east 
half had been erroneous. (Liber W. B., 124, folio 185.) The United 
States apparently did not deal further with the west half of the square, 
and this raises the presumption that it was assigned to the original 
proprietors. 

The division between the original proprietors is indicated by the 
assessment for 1803, which gives Tots 7-12 as owned by Notley Young's 
heirs and lots 13-21 as owned by trustees of Morris and Nicholson. 
This would give the Young heirs 57,496 square feet and Morris and 
Nicholson 79,813 square feet exclusive of alleys. The net assign- 
ments in this square were, therefore, as follows: 



Lot No. 


Public. 


Young. 


Morris 
and 

Nichol- 
son's 

trustee. 


Lot No. 


Public. 


Young. 


Morris 
and 

Nichol- 
son's 

trustee. 


1 


Sq. feet. 
9,000 
6,840 
10,545 
10,545 
10,545 
10,021 


Sq. feet. 


Sq.feet. 


17 


Sq.feet. 


Sq. feet. 


Sq. feet. 

6,840 

10,545 

10,545 


2 






18... 






3 






19 






4 






20... 






10,545 


5 






21.. 






6 






22 


10,021 
10,545 
10,545 
10,545 
6,840 
9,000 
7,259! 
7,799f 
7,259! 






7 


10,021 
10,545 
10,545 
10,545 
6,840 
9,000 




23.. 






8 






24 






9 






25 . 






10 






26 . 






11 






27... 






12 






28 .. 






13 




7,259f 
7,1992 
7,259! 
9,000 


29... 






14 






30 . 






15 












16 






137,311i 


57,496 


69,194* 









8 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

Square north of No. 563. — There seems not to have been a formal 
division of this square. There is a copy of a division sheet in the 
Congressional Library collection signed by Benjamin Oden as original 
proprietor by William H. Dorsey. This sheet provides that the whole 
of the square is to remain to Oden, but it is not signed by the com- 
missioners. The account with Oden in division of his land is to be 
found on page 136, of volume 11 of the calculations. No entry with 
reference to square north of No. 563 appears on either side of this 
account, which remained open until Joseph Elgar became superin- 
tendent of public buildings. At that time it appears that Oden had 
been allotted 22,801| square feet more land than he was entitled to 
as one-half of his original holdings and, according to an entry in a hand- 
writing different from the balance of the account, a balance was made 
by the reassignment by Oden of lots 6 and 9 in square No. 559 and 
the relinquishment of his claim for the part of his land taken for 
reservation 9. Lots 6 and 9, square 559, were sold by the United 
States, indicating the correctness of the above entry. The square 
north of No. 563 was sold by the United States in 1844, thus extin- 
guishing its interest therein. Its right to sell the same evidently 
came from the settlement with Oden and the exclusion of the latter 
from further participation in the land laid out in the original city. 

Square No. 574. — This square was not divided in the original 
division, as there was a conflict of claims and an uncertainty as to 
where the lines ran. Volume 10 of the books of calculations says: 

Supposed proprietors Daniel Carroll, Benjamin Oden, and David Burnes. The 
lines are not known. 

There is a plat in the registers of squares showing the line of division 
between the original proprietors in pencil, but this undoubtedly was 
put in at a later date. 

Liber J. A. S., 42, folio 176 of the land records, contains a memoran- 
dum of agreement as to the division of this square, dated April 13, 
1835, but recorded June 25, 1852. It recites the disagreeing claims 
and that the original proprietors, whom it names as Daniel Carroll, 
Benjamin Oden, and John P. Van Ness, have agreed to leave the divi- 
sion to William Noland, commissioner of public buildings. William 
Elliott, surveyor of the city, made a survey of the square and divided 
it into four lots of equal dimensions; and Noland divided by alternate 
numbered lots, so that lots 1 and 3 fell to the original proprietors and 
2 and 4 to the public. This division was probably arranged so that 
the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad might acquire the whole square, and 
the road did acquire the part falling to the United States by purchase, 
for which a deed was given September 5, 1835. (Liber W. B., 53, 
f. 472.) The division, although belated, seems to answer the require- 
ment of the trust deed and to settle any question as to the division 
of this square. 

Square west of west of No. 695. — This is identical with reservation 
290. The land immediately west of this reservation has resulted from 
the filling in of the James Creek Canal, and constitutes the bed of 
Canal Street. 

Square north of No. 853. — This square seems not to have been the 
subject of a formal act of division. No signed agreement of division 
was recorded, although there is a form of a division sheet unsigned 
and undated which is made out to assign lots 2 and 4 to Prout and 
Carroll and lots 1 and 3 to the public. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 9 

There are complete entries as to the division of this square in the 
books of the original commissioners. Volume 10 of the calculations 
for 1791-1804, under the heading "Square north of No. 853/' gives 
the total area of the square as 38,452 square feet. Of this, 16,429 
square feet was derived from Daniel Carroll's land in Cerne Abbey 
Manor, and he became entitled to 8,2 14J square feet. The balance 
of 22,023 square feet was derived from William Prout's land, and he 
became entitled to 11,011-J- square feet. In volume 11, 1794-1809, 
of the calculations there is an account with William Prout and Dan- 
iel Carroll as original proprietors, on page 153. In this account the 
two proprietors are credited with 19,226 square feet for the amount 
of their combined moieties of the total area of square north of No. 853, 
and are charged with lots 2 and 4, with a total area of 19,226 square 
feet, thus settling the division as to this square and leaving the 
balance of this square, 19,226 square feet, to the United States. Al- 
though this division was not made the subject of a formal agreement, 
it seems to divest the United States of any interest in lots 2 and 4 of 
square north of No. 853, and it has sold lots 1 and 3, its former assign- 
ment. 

Square No. 0&4.— This square was not formally divided, and 
there is an unsigned division sheet dated July 8, 1795. This sheet 
provides that the whole of the square is to remain to the commis- 
sioners, subject to be sold. There is a pencil memorandum on the 
back of the sheet as follows: 

This square canceled from different claims. The copy will stand. 

Another indorsement states that this square is not on record. 

It appears from the book of calculations that George Walker was 
the owner of practically the entire square. Notley Young's line 
evidently crossed the square, but only included 8 feet therein, which 
would entitle him to a moiety of only 4 feet. Volume 10 gives 88,172 
square feet to this square derived from George Walker's land, of 
which he would be entitled to 44,086 feet. He is credited with this 
area at page 177 of volume 11, and on page 148 Notley Young is 
credited with 4 feet in this square. 

The whole square came to the public and was sold April 5, 1848. 
Walker's account was not closed, and the final entries on page 185 of 
volume 11 show a balance of 19,216 square feet accruing to the public. 
As he was credited with his full moiety in this square his interest was 
extinguished, and the slight interest of Notley Young was similarly 
closed out. The square, therefore, was properly assigned to the 
public. 

Square No. 99 %. — There is a division sheet for this square signed 
by Daniel Carroll and William Cranch, but is not signed by the com- 
missioners and is not recorded. This gives the assignment of lots 3, 
4, 5, and 6 to Daniel Carroll, and lots 1, 2, 7, and 8 to the public to be 
sold. This assignment is affirmed by the entries in volumes 10 and 11 
of the books of calculations. Volume 10 contains the following note: 

This square has been divided and signed by Daniel Carroll and Robert Morris by 
his attorney, William Cranch. It is among the unsigned squares. Wants the signa- 
tures of commissioners and John Nicholson. 

Square No. 994 was derived from the "hop yard" of which Daniel 
Carroll owned part and Morris and Nicholson part. The area taken 
from Daniel Carroll's portion of the "hop yard" for square No. 994 



10 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

was 36,361^ square feet, entitling him to a credit of 18,080f square 
feet. From the portion owned hy Morris and Nicholson 48,055J 
square feet were taken for square No. 994, entitling Morris and Nich- 
olson to 24,027J square feet. 

The public claim in this square was 42,208J square feet. In 
volume 11, page 120, Carroll is credited with his moiety and is charged 
with lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, a total of 45,121 square feet. Morris and 
Nicholson are credited on page 200 with 24,027f square feet, and no 
lots are charged against them in this square. Both Carroll's account 
and Morris and Nicholson's account for the " hop yard" show balances 
in favor of the public, so that, having been credited with their propor- 
tions of land in this square, their interest is closed and the public was 
entitled to its moiety in square No. 994, for which it secured the lots 

I, 2, 7, and 8, with a total area of 39,296 square feet — slightly less than 
its full claim. The excess was charged to Carroll's account and is 
included in the balance against Carroll. 

Square No. 1058. — The record of the division of square No. 1058 
was not completed, but entry in volume 10 of the Calculations of the 
Commissioners says: 

This square is divided, but has only the signature of William Young's heirs. 

This partially signed division sheet is in existence but is not on 
record in either of the books showing the divisions. The names of 
Ruth Ann Young, for herself and next friend of Mary M. and Nancy 
Young, infant children of William Young, deceased, are signed by 
John Oakley, attorney for the above, and there is also the signature 
of Sam W. Young, apparently an adult heir. The other proprietor 
having land in this square was Abraham Young, and the original hold- 
ings with the amount of land to which the proprietors are entitled are 
given in volume 10 of the calculations under square No. 1058. Abra- 
ham Young's heirs appear to have originally held 53,271 square feet, 
and to have been entitled to 26,635J square feet. In volume 11 of 
the calculations, page 191, Abraham Young's heirs are credited with 
the amount of 26,635| square feet, and debited by lots 1, 2, 13, 14, 
and 20 assigned. The area of these lots, with the proportion of the 
alleys, amounts to 30,983| square feet. 

William Young's heirs are entered in volume 10 as originally holding 
70,662 square feet and as entitled to 35,331 \ square feet. In volume 

II, at page 213, these heirs are credited with 35,331 \ square feet and 
debited with lots 3, 4, 10, 11, and 12, amounting, with the alleys, to 
30,983| square feet. Volume 10 gives the amount to which the 
public is entitled as 61,967 square feet. In disposal of lots, volume 2, 
page 52, there are entries showing the public ownership of lots 5, 6, 
7, 8, 9, and 15-19, a total area, with alleys, of 61,987 square feet. 
The above division of lots corresponds with the assignment given 
in the unsigned division sheet and may be taken as authentic. 

Square No. 1070. — The division of square No. 1070 was not recorded. 
Two forms for division sheets were prepared. One, dated Septem- 
ber 30, 1796, is signed by the commissioners and Abraham Young, 
and divides the square with Abraham Young as sole original pro- 
prietor. There is a pencil memorandum on the sheet as follows: 

Part of this square belongs to William Young's heirs. 

The second division sheet is without date, and is signed by William 
Young's heirs, by Ruth Ann Young by attorney, and Sam W. Young. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



11 



Volume 10 of the commissioners' calculations, under square No. 1070, 
says: 
This square is not signed by Abraham Young's heirs and commissioners. 

In volume 10 the entries show that Abraham Young held 87,630 
square feet, and was entitled to 43,815 square feet. In volume 11, at 
page 192, the Abraham Young heirs are credited with 43,815 square 
feet, and charged with lots 6, 7, 8, and 11, making, with alleys, 
23,527 square feet. 

William Young's heirs are entered in volume 10 as having held 
4,825 square feet, and to be entitled to 2,412^ square feet. They 
are credited with this amount, and debited with lots 4, 5, 9, and 10, 
a total of 22,700 square feet. The public claim in this square was 
46,226^ square feet, and the public lots are entered at page 55, dis- 
posal of lots, volume 2, as Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, a total, 
with alleys, of 46,227^ square feet. The public claim in this square 
was thereby satisfied and the excess received by William Young's 
heirs is to be referred to the final status of their account. 

Square No. 1084- — There is no formal act of division of square No. 
1084 on record. There are two incomplete division sheets. One is 
dated September 30, 1796, and seems to have been prepared for 
recording. It gives lots 4-11 to Abraham Young, and 1-3 and 12-16 
to the public. It is signed by the commissioners and Abraham 
Young. A pencil memorandum says: 

Part of this square belongs to William Young's heirs. 

The second sheet is prepared for division with Abraham Young and 
William Young's heirs. It is undated and is only signed by Ruth 
Ann Young, by her attorney, and Samuel W. Young. The division 
noted is the same as that given in the Books of Calculations. 

In volume 10 of the calculations, the total holdings of Abraham 
Young's heirs is given as 25,185 feet; entitled to 12,592^ feet. Vol- 
ume 11, page 192, gives a similar credit and charges Abraham Young's 
heirs with lots 4, 5, 9, and 10, a total of 23,527 feet, including alleys. 

Volume 10 gives the public claim as 46,227J feet. 

Disposal of Lots, volume 2, gives lots sold bv the United States 1, 
2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, a total, including alleys, of 46,227J feet. 
There seems to be evidence of an equal division of this square, with 
the net assignment by lots, exclusive of alleys, as follows: 



Lot. 


Public. 


Abraham 

Young's 

heirs. 


William 

Young's 

heirs. 


Lot. 


Public. 


Abraham 

Young's 

heirs. 


William 

Young's 

heirs. 


1 


Sq. Ft. 
4,240 
5,230 
5,936 


Sq. Ft. 


Sq. Ft. 


9 


Sq. Ft. 


Sq. Ft. 
4,240 
5,230 


Sq. Ft. 


2 






10 






3 






U 




5,936 


4 


5,936 
5,230 




12 


5,936 

5,230 

4,240 

5,299! 

5,299! 




5 






13 






6 




4,240 

5,299| 

5,2991 


14 






7 






15 






8 






16 



















Square south of No. 1092. — There is no recorded division sheet for 
this square, but there is an undated sheet signed by the original 
proprietors. This sheet assigns lots 1 and 4 to the heirs of William 



12 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

Young, and lots 2 and 3 to George Walker. This assignment is borne 
out by volumes 10 and 11 of the Books of Calculations. Volume 10 
gives the part of this square derived from the land of William Young's 
heirs as 48,036 square feet and the part derived from George Walker's 
land as 14,727f square feet, making a total of 62,763f square feet, of 
which the United States was entitled to half; namely, 3 1,381 f square 
feet. 

Volume 11, at page 215, makes the appropriate credit to William 
Young's heirs and charges them with lots 1 and 4, a total of 25,142i 
square feet. Volume 11, at page 185, credits George Walker with his 
moiety and charges him with lots 1 and 4, a total of 37,621^ square 
feet. This took up the whole of the square, and the claim of the 
United States went to offset other claims of the original proprietors, 
and also to make up the balance in favor of the United States, which 
appears on closing the accounts of both William Young's heirs and 
George Walker. 

The division of this square seems to have been arranged in accord- 
ance with the usual practice, and although Walker received more 
than double his moiety, and Young's heirs only one-half of their 
moiety, and although the United States received nothing in this 
square, the transaction as to the square itself seems to be terminated, 
and the credits and debits must be referred to the final settlement 
of the respective accounts. 

Square northeast of No. 1113. — No formal record of the division of 
this square appears, but there is an undated and unsigned form of 
agreement that the interest of the United States in this square was 
assigned to William Young's heirs. This paper is supported by the 
evidence of volume 11 of the book of calculations, page 215. It 
appears from this entry that the total area of the square was 20,324J 
square feet, of which 10,162! square feet would accrue to William 
Young's heirs, and an equal amount to the public, but the Young 
heirs are charged with the total area, thus extinguishing the claim 
of the United States on division to this particular square, and referring 
the same to the status of the account between the public and the 
said heirs as it appears from all the credit and debit entries. 

Square south of 1117, square No. 1124, square No. 1131, square No. 
114-7, and square south of No. 114-9. — These squares did not appear in 
the original plan of the city, but were laid out in pursuance of the 
acts of Congress cited below: 

Square No. 1131 was laid out in accordance with the terms of the 
act approved March 3, 1905 (33 Stats., 1014). Square south of No. 
1117, square No. 1124, square No. 1147, and square south of No. 
1149 were laid out by the surveyor under the terms of the act ap- 
proved June 30, 1906 (34 Stats., 787), and recorded in book 31, page 
185, of the records of the surveyor's office. Under the terms of the 
acts cited all this land was conveyed by the Secretary of War to 
Sydney Bieber on payment of the purchase price therein provided for. 

ADDITIONAL CONVEYANCES. 

Since the date of the last printed report the following facts have 
been ascertained or action taken which will eliminate from the sec- 
ond list given a certain number of lots or portions of lots therein 
named. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 13 

Square No. 63, lot 1. — Owing to a failure to record a deed given to 
Isaac Polock in 1794 the record title of this lot remained in the 
United States until it was acquired by condemnation for the purpose 
of inclusion in the Potomac Park. The proceedings to this end are 
numbered 781 in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and 
acknowledgment of the payment of the amount awarded and 
satisfaction of judgment is recorded in district court docket No. 2, 
page 282. 

Square No. 74, lot 10 (part of). — All of this lot except the east 18 
feet 4 inches by 42 feet was quitclaimed to Frederick L. Vogt and 
Rosina Kaiser by the Chief of Engineers on June 10, 1911. (See 
later remarks on this and other lots in this square, p. 24.) 

Square No. 103, lots 3 and 4- — These lots fell to the United States 
by the division with the proprietors of Hamburg and were sold on 
September 17, 1793, to John Hayes, who apparently paid only a 
portion of the purchase price and the lots were resold to Forrest 
and Stoddert. The charge for the lots, £175, is made to John 
Hayes in ledger A, page 102, and the account is balanced by payment 
of the balance due by Forrest and Stoddert, on September 18, 1794. 
This balance is charged to Forrest and Stoddert's account on page 
124 and carried to ledger B, where it is settled by the credit of March 
1, 1797, which balanced the account. In the commissioners' pro- 
ceedings for 1791-1795, page 277, under date of September 19, 1794, 
there is an entry stating that Forrest and Stoddert have paid the 
purchase price for these lots and are entitled to a certificate in fee. 
The form of such a certificate as agreed upon is given in the pro- 
ceedings, but no such conveyance has been found of record. 

This property had been in the possession of the family of the 
late occupant, Miss Jeannie Turnbull, since February 24, 1842. 
(Liber W. B., 91, f. 254.) 

In view of the foregoing facts, the Chief of Engineers of the United 
States Army by a quitclaim deed dated May 20, 1912, conveyed the 
outstanding legal title of the United States to the occupant and 
equitable owner. Recorded May 23, 1912. 

Square No. 116, lot 5. — This lot, with lots 4 and 20 in the same 
square, were assigned January 17, 1797, to James M. Lingan. On 
January 1, 1808, Lingan reconveyed these lots to the superintendent, 
with others, to settle his account. (Liber T-19, f. 19.) 

Under date of September 28, 1867, the officer in charge of public 
buildings and grounds, under the direction of the Chief of Engineers, 
was authorized to sell lots 4 and 5 in square 116. (Sales book, vol. 5, 

&427.) Evidence of the sale of lot 5 is completed by a deed dated 
ovember 20, 1867, recorded December 12, 1867. (Liber ECE-24, 
f. 186.) By this deed N. Michler, Chief of Engineers, United States 
Army, conveyed lot 5, square 116, to James B. Jones; consideration, 
$981.01. 

Square No. 116, lot 20. — The evidence as to the conveyance of this 
lot is derived from an entry in ledger No. 13 of the records of the 
office of public buildings and grounds. This ledger was kept by 
B. B. French, commissioner of public buildings, and at page 125, 
under date of July 18, 1862, there is the following entry: 

By cash received from Louis F. Whitney, for lot 20, in square 116, and deed given 
for said lot, $118. 



14 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

The history of this transaction is as follows : 

Folliot A. Whitney was a page in the United States Senate in 1856. 
He purchased lot 20, square 116, from a person whose name does not ap- 
pear, and who claimed to own the said lot. Later, upon being informed 
that the lot belonged to the United States in consequence of its con- 
veyance by Lingan to settle his account, on January 1, 1808, he made 
application by his next friend, Louis F. Whitney, who appears to 
have been his father, for a transfer of the title of the United States. 
Under date of May 6, 1856, the Committee on Private Land Claims 
recommended that Louis F. Whitney should be given the title of the 
United States to this lot, but no action seems to have been taken 
until the deed indicated, as above, in 1862. B. B. French, in a 
letter dated December 18, 1862, states that he gave title to the lot 
to a boy who had previously purchased from a private party, the latter 
being without title, and that he received the sum of $118 for the 
property. In 1866, F. A. Whitney seems to have been a second 
lieutenant in the United States Army, stationed at Charleston, S. C, 
at which point he executed a deed on December 17, 1866, to Folliot 
T. Lally. This deed was recorded December 19, 1866, liber RMH-24, 
folio 285. It conveys lot 20, square 116, 56 feet front by 186.43 feet 
deep. 

Which was conveyed to the party of the first part by B. B. French, as recorded on 
the Record Book of the city of Washington, July 7, 1862. 

The consideration named in the deed of Whitney to Lally is $100. 
There is a further entry in the register of squares in the office of 
public buildings and grounds : 

Sold to Louis F. Whitney by B. B. French, commissioner of public buildings and 
grounds, 2d July, 1856. Deed given. 

The year is apparently erroneously given in this entry and prob- 
ably should be 1862. Although a record of the deed by French to 
Whitney has not been found in the land records of the District of 
Columbia, such record does not seem to be necessary to the legal 
effect of the instrument of conveyance and there seems to be satis- 
torv evidence of the latter. The said conveyance being appar- 
ently binding in law between the parties thereto, the title of the 
United States to lot 20, square 116, seems to have been divested. 

Square 153, lot 8 (part of). — While there is no evidence that the 
United States ever received the purchase price of this lot, the act 
of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. L., p. 1346) directed the Secretary of 
War to change the records of the office of public buildings and 
grounds so as to show title in an occupant who could show 20 years 
of uninterrupted possession. Questions relating to the lots affected 
by the above act were held in abeyance by the Secretary of War 
and recommendation was made to the Congress that this act should 
be repealed. No action having been taken by the Congress and 
claimants under the act insisting that they were entitled to the 
benefits of its terms, the matter was referred to the Attorney General 
for opinion. This opinion, dated April 17, 1911 (29 Op. 40), holds 
that the effect of the act of March 3, 1899, was not suspended by 
the act approved May 30, 1908, which created the present commis- 
sion, and that claimants are entitled to the benefit of the act on 
compliance with its conditions. The Secretary of War, therefore, 
on May 2, 1911, corrected the records of the office of public build- 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 15 

ings and grounds so as to show title in Clara Cox Dawson to that 
portion of this lot included in sublot 114 and in Sarah E. Ryan to 
that portion of the lot included in sublot 112. 

Square 200, part of lot 8. — All of this lot, except 701 feet background, 
was conveyed to the vestry of St. John's Parish by a quitclaim deed 
from the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, dated April 
8, 1912. (Liber 3515, f. 373. See Walter Stewart's property, p. 27.) 

Square No. 22 J+, lot 9. — This lot was originally assigned to the 
United States, and October 8, 1792, a certificate of sale was granted 
to David Burnes; consideration, $400. This certificate only acknowl- 
edged the payment of one-fourth of the amount and did not convey 
title to the lot. On November 30, 1863, Benjamin B. French, com- 
missioner of public buildings, gave a deed reciting the purchase of 
the lot by Burnes and the granting of a certificate stating that upon 
the full payment for the lot Burnes was to have a certificate in fee 
simple. The deed recites, further, that the records of the original 
commissioners show that the entire purchase money was paid and 
recites the course of title from David Burnes to George W. Riggs and 
George H. Plant, to whom French, as commissioner, conveys the 
entire interest of the United States. The deed was recorded Decem- 
ber 14, 1863. (Liber N. C. T., f. 284.) 

Square No. 253, lot 20. — Commissioners' proceedings for 1791-1795, 
page 384, show that Thomas Johnson bought lot 6 in square 79, which 
did not fall to the public. On April 24, 1795, he was sold lot 20, 
square 253, in lieu thereof, and a charge is made in ledger B, at page 
38, for the balance of the purchase money, which was settled June 5, 
1800, by a payment by Charles McNantz. If any certificate or deed 
was issued, it was not recorded, and the legal title to the lot remained 
in the United States until it was divested by the quitclaim deed of 
the Secretary of War to the devisees of Marion V. Thompson under 
authority of the act of Congress approved March 4, 1911. (Private 
acts, 61st Cong., 3d sess., p. 564.) The deed is dated May 4, 1911, 
and was recorded May 8, 1911, in liber 3408, folio 464. 

Square No. 1+69, lots 5-7, 9, 11-21+. — Sold by order of the court by 
Walter S. Cox, trustee, in the case of the United States v. Schwartz 
et al. (the Greenleaf heirs) to William H. Philip. Deed dated April 
14, 1858; recorded liber J. A. S. 155, folio 292. 

Square No. 551, lots 8 and 9. — These lots were originally sold to 
George Savage, May 27, 1856, but the deed was not recorded, and on 
January 22, 1866, the commissioner of the city gave a certificate of 
the records of the commissioner's office to the effect that these lots 
were sold to Savage, which certificate was recorded in liber R. M. H. 
12, folio 130. It is apparent that this was not deemed sufficient to 
complete the record title, and under date of June 12, 1871, the Chief 
of Engineers made a deed to George Savage reciting the fact of the sale 
and formally conveying the right, title, and interest of the United 
States. This deed was recorded June 21, 1871 (liber 651, folio 93), 
and completes the conveyance of the interest of the United States in 
these two lots. 

Square No. 667, lot 6. — A paper found in the miscellaneous papers 
of the commissioner's office indicated the sale of this lot at auction to 
Horatio N. Gilbert, and this gave the clue to the location of the deed 
which was given by B. B. French, commissioner, to Gilbert, July 11, 



16 TITLE OP THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

1866. The deed was recorded October 16, 1866, in liber R. M. H. 23 
folio 61. The consideration was $143.85. 

Square No. 825, part of. — No evidence of the division of this square 
has been found and no evidence that the United States has received 
any consideration for its interest in this square. It is included in 
the property affected by the act of March 3, 1899, and under the 
circumstances described in the paragraph for square No. 153, lot 8, 
the Secretary of War on September 18, 1911, corrected the record 
with reference to 17 feet 6 inches front on L Street so as to show 
title in Joanna F. Warwick, Henry T. Adams, Mary E. Collins, and 
John M. Adams. 

On October 4, 1911, the Secretary of War made a similar correc- 
tion to show that at the time of the passage of the act of March 3, 
1899, John R. Adams had title to a parcel of this square fronting 
134.25 feet on Fifth Street and 90 feet on K Street. 

Other corrections of title in this square are as follows: 

May 24, 1902, 30.42 feet on Fourth Street in behalf of George L. Boswell. 

October 21, 1902, 22.75 feet on Fifth Street, Mary Davis for life, remainder to Harden 
Davis. 

November 25, 1904, 20 feet on L Street to William H. Sorrell. 

July 31, 1908, lots 41 and 42 of Anna M. Devote's subdivision to Oscar Luckett, 
administrator. 

The status of the residue of the square is described under the 
square number in the paragraphs relating to property to which the 
United States still has title. 

Square north of No. 853, lots 2 and J h — As shown by the foregoing 
report on additional division of squares, these two lots were not 
assigned to the United States. 

Square No. 985, lot 17. — The record of the conveyance of this lot 
has been found as follows: 

October 11, 1865, B. B. French, commissioner of the city, to B. Vandoren. This 
deed is recorded in Liber R. M. H., 4, folio 446. 

The lot was one of those sold at the last auction sale held for the 
disposal of the residue of the lots in the original city, and the auction- 
eer's report and bill of sale is on file with the division sheet for this 
square. 

Square No. 996, lot 9. — The interest of the United States in the 
east 25 feet of this lot was divested by the action of the Secretary 
of War, on November 17, 1911, under the terms of the act of March 
3, 1899. (See above relating to square 153, lot 8.) By this action 
the record was changed so as to show title in Charles E. Kern. 

Square north of No. 1026, lot 2. — It now seems certain that the 
inclusion of this lot in the records of the city was an error arising 
from the fact that the square when sold was sold as lot 1, the small 
amount realized raising the question whether the whole square had 
been conveyed. There is no record of a subdivision of this square 
until a comparatively recent date, and this lot may therefore be 
eliminated from the list of lots under consideration. 

Square No. 1132, lot 16. — A deed has been found for this lot from 
B. B. French, commissioner, to Columbus Alexander, dated Novem- 
ber 26, 1866. Recorded December 29, 1866, in Liber R. M. H., 26, 
folio 204. Consideration, $55.60. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 17 

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF TITLE. 

As an incident to the work of the commission it has been necessary 
to search for and examine the original patents and deeds covering the 
location of the original city of Washington as well as the papers and 
records of the original commissioners of the city and their successors 
up to the time when the successorship vested by operation of law in 
the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army. 

The patents and as many of the deeds prior to 1791 as were enrolled 
by the clerk of the provincial court of Maryland are in the office of 
the land commissioner at the statehouse annex at Annapolis. The 
old Maryland law allowed conveyances to be enrolled either in the 
county in which the land was situated or in the provincial court, and 
several important deeds affecting the titles of the original proprietors 
are on record in the above office. Most of the deeds prior to 1791 
are, however, enrolled in the records of Prince George's County, which 
are located in the courthouse at Upper Marlboro. 

Beginning with the appointment of a recorder of deeds for the Dis- 
trict of Columbia and the enrollment of the original deeds of trust 
conveying the land included in the original city of Washington, the 
records of deeds of the District of Columbia contain the enrollment of 
the certificates of purchase and deeds which conveyed the interest of 
the United States in the lots which were assigned to the public, as well 
as the enrollment of conveyances between private parties, mortgages, 
powers of attorney, etc., necessary to the understanding of the trans- 
actions by which the original commissioners disposed of the land 
which fell to the public in the division and which was sold to raise 
money to build the Capitol and White House. 

Supplementary information as to these sales is contained in the 
account books of the commissioners and their successors which are 
preserved in the office of Public Buildings and Grounds, consisting 
of a full set of journals and ledgers containing entries which show 
sales of a number of lots for which no certificates or deeds are on 
record. These entries form the basis of the equities which will be 
hereafter noted in cases in which the United States holds the legal 
title to lots in the original city. 

In the matter of the division of land between the original proprie- 
tors and the public under the terms of the deeds in trust the records, 
with a few exceptions, must be sought elsewhere than in the office of 
the recorder of deeds. The division between the public and the pro- 
prietors in the towns of Hamburg and Carrollsburg was put on record 
in a formal instrument in each case, but the details of the divisions 
with the larger proprietors are to be gathered from various papers 
and books in the office of Public Buildings and Grounds and the office 
of the surveyor of the District of Columbia. 

A completed transaction as to the division of the land in a square 
was supposed to be shown by an instrument signed by the original 
proprietors and by the commissioners and containing a plat of the 
square as it was divided into lots, with or without alleys, as the case 
might be, and a certificate of the date of division and the assignment 
by lots or by the whole square to the public or to the original pro- 
prietor. 

52069°— S. Kept. 907, 62-2 2 



18 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

It was supposed by the commissioners that when these certificates 
were recorded, as provided by law, they were effectual to vest the 
title (which was until then in the hands of trustees) according to the 
statement contained in the certificate of division; that is to say, 
the original proprietor took the fee to certain lots of subdivided 
building land which had been carved out of the original farm property 
under trust and the public took the fee to an equal amount in lots, 
leaving the title of the residue of the land to vest according to the 
executed provisions of the deeds of trust. 

This procedure seems to have been intended by the act of the Mary- 
land Legislature of December 19, 1791, with its supplements, and sec- 

-77 • ftr 

^ 1*7)1 <g)*pL£ gfr*&,. **&£** >o-^*^4> XT'&L 
/^Jne^ Ot<r ./t***a& ^v Mw&ti£ ofay *7^r**> 










Facsimile of certificate of division on division sheet. 

tion 5 of the original act seems to have been intended to quiet title 
so as to make a new basis, at least for the titles which vested in the 
public on division. 

It is understood, however, that this is not held to be the law. 
Following the decision in Bursey v. Lyon (30 Appeals D. C, 598) the 
transactions incident to the division of the lots are regarded as inter- 
mediate steps and title must be deduced from the Crown of England 
or from the State of Maryland. 

There would be no serious practical objection to this view of the 
law if the lines of the original patents were accurately defined, since 
the title of all the original proprietors under these patents seems 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



19 



possible of satisfactory de- 
duction. There are, how- 
ever, tracts included in the 
original city which were 
not definitely laid down 
even at the time of the 
division. Several of the 
proprietors made conflict- 
ing claims as to the loca- 
tions of their boundary 
lines and the division was 
only effected after compro- 
mises in a considerable 
number of cases. The 
original surveys were mag- 
netic, depending to a large 
degree on landmarks which 
have long since disap- 
peared, and there is every 
reason to 1 suppose that 
conflicting boundaries had 
been run even before the 
city was established. 

When the city of Wash- 
ington was laid down, an 
entirely new departure was 
taken in the surveying 
work and true courses were 
established. The old com- 
pass courses were entirely 
abandoned and have now 
become matters of meager 
and obscure record. Rob- 
ert Peter seems to have 
had his property resur- 
veyed and the courses cor- 
rected to conform with 
the city survey, but even 
this resurvey is not defi- 
nitely associated with any 
point in the city survey 
and its conformity can 
only be conjectured. The 
relation of the lines of the 
other tracts is such that it 
would be a matter of very 
great difficulty to decide 
whether many of the city 
lots actually lay within the 
patent of the original pro- 
prietor mentioned in the 
instrument of division or 




^£0 




jj44* 



to 



20 TITLE OP THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

whether the assignment was made as a result of a compromise 
between the conflicting claimants. 

There are in the office of the surveyor of the District of Columbia 
and in the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, duplicate volumes 
purporting to be the recorded copies of the original instruments of 
division. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Potomac 
Steamboat Company v. Upper Potomac Steamboat Company (109 
U. S., 672) and in United States v. Morris et al. (174 U. S., 196), held 
that the authenticity of these books as public records had not been 
established. It appears, however, from the indorsements on the 
original division sheets that Jno. M. Gantt, the regularly appointed 
recorder of deeds did record these sheets in books which were arranged 
as the existing books are arranged. It also appears from internal 
evidence that the plats and notations of division appearing as original 
entries in the present books are of a date prior to 1803, while the set 
of books in the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds has apparently 
been in official use continuously since the set was made up. 

A large number of the original sheets from which these copies were 
made have been collected by the commission and are now in the office 
of Public Buildings and Grounds. Certain bundles of these sheets 
were found in that office, but from use and their method of arrange- 
ment they were in danger of being irreparably damaged. It was also 
found that the Division of Maps and Charts of the Congressional 
Library had come into possession of a large number of copies of the 
division sheets and also a considerable number of the originals bearing 
the recorder's certificate. Through the cooperation of the Librarian 
of Congress, the officer in charge of public buildings and grounds, and 
the Chief of the Division of Maps and Charts the commission has 
been able to consolidate these collections and to mount them on 
stout manilla backings. They are now being bound in permanent 
form and one in which they can be used without danger of 
destruction. 

With the Congressional Library collection there were found a large 
number of notes and official papers relating to subdivisions of city 
squares which have been turned over to the surveyor of the District 
oi Columbia, and with the collection in the office of Public Buildings 
and Grounds there were a large number of letters and miscellaneous 
papers and accounts which have been mounted in uniform style with 
the division sheets. The letters have been bound and the miscella- 
neous papers have been arranged in connection with the division 
sheets under the square numbers to which they relate, the latter 
making a self-indexing file, with cross references where necessary. 

While the condition and completeness of the early records of, the 
city of Washington compares favorably with similar records elsewhere, 
it is apparent that there has been a loss of valuable items. One volume 
of the proceedings of the commissioners is missing and the set of divi- 
sion sheets is short by a considerable number of squares and would 
have to be supplemented by the use of the record books to which 
reference has been made. The records of the city were formerly in a 
room in the basement of the Capitol and seem to have been drawn on 
liberally in making reports to committees of the Congress and by 

Eersons interested in land matters in the earlv history of the city, 
ome of the papers which were sent to committees are now in the 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



21 



Division of Manuscripts of the Library of Congress and other historical 
collections may be found to contain material of interest and value. 
The missing volume of commissioners' records was advertised for 
some years ago, but so far has not been found. The Librarian of 



p^ *V 




i Cu ■ — *" ■ *"*''' a -^ 



Facsimile of plat of square as shown on division sheet. 



Congress has been requested by the commission to advise the officer 
in charge of public buildings and grounds of any papers which may 
come to his attention relating to the transactions of the original 
commissioners of the city and their successors. 



22 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



'qtiar\(L;J/' u yf4 



The records in the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds are kept 
in closets and wooden cases and are in danger of complete destruction 
by fire. The commission has deemed that the preservation of these 
essential records is an appropriate part of its work and has provided 
for steel cases in which the records will be placed in order to guard as 
much as possible against loss by fire and deterioration. 

The foregoing facts seem to show that it was the intention to estab- 
lish the division made by the original commissioners as a new founda- 
tion for titles of real 
property in the origi- 
nal city of Washing- 
ton. As previously 
stated, however, it 
has been held that 
this intention was 
not given effect. As 
the question is one for 
judicial de termina- 
tion, this commission 
has not attempted to 
do more than to put 
the evidence of these 
transactions in a con- 
dition which will facili- 
tate a thorough reex- 
amination of the mat- 
ter should opportunity 
occur. 

As an incident to the 
main purpose of the 
investigations of the 
commission, it has 
been possible to estab- 
lish with reasonable 
certainty some of the 
lines of the original 



Z.CC Ctcao ^ Z*. 



^t< cc t <rfcr s> 



<X 






*r <//7 A 





c^> 



%/^^ £-*- C*-<J2S> 






./ 



^i gdS &**> c/<^ 4^*~** 




/2k^&<^ 



Facsimile of recorder's certificate on division sheet. 



- /? si , Jtp ) patents. Especial care 

cJ^V^ /^U &^~ BrfK^ wil1 be ta ^ en in a11 of 

the commission's work 

to perpetuate all data 
on this subject which 
may be developed, and 
it is possible that a greater portion of the ground in this particu- 
lar line of research may be covered before the completion of the work 
of the commission. As a part of its final report, the commission 
will state the nature of the questions relating to the location of the 
lines of original patents which may remain unsettled and will make 
such recommendations at that time as may be indicated by the 
probable value to the public of a completion of the research along 
this line. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



23 



LANDS IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS AN INTEREST. 

After careful study and investigation of all the evidence now avail- 
able, the commission seems warranted in positive statements as to 
parcels of land in the District of Columbia of which private persons 
claim ownership but in or to which the United States has some 
interest or title. It should be stated that in a number of cases the 
title of the United States results merely from defects in conveyancing, 
so that the Federal Government has merely the naked legal title with- 
out any equitable interest whatever. There is, however, a very con- 
siderable amount of adversely occupied land, principally along the 
Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and Rock Creek, to the possession of 
which the United States is entitled. The parcels identified by square 
and lot in the plan of the original city of Washington in which the 
United States has interest or title, as above, are as follows: 



That portion of square No. 2, which lies 

west of Water Street. 
All of square No. 3. 
All of square west of No. 9. 
Square No. 22,, lot 1. 
Square No. 57, lot 4. 
Square No. 74, lots 6, 9; parts of lots 5, 10, 

12, and 13. 
Square No. 80, lot 3. 
All of square No. 82. 
Square No. 86, lots 2 and 5. 
Square No. 116, lot 4. 
Square No. 126, lots 28 and 29. 
Square No. 153, part of lot 8. 
Square No. 166, lot 20. 
Square No. 200, lots 9, 10, and 11; part of 

lot 8. 
Square No. 224, lot 8. 
Square No. 225, lots 1, 2, 3, 6, and 16. 
Square No. 254, lots 15, 19, and 20. 
All of square No. 266. 
Square No. 268, lots 6, 7, and 8. 
Square No. 387, lots 21-58. 
Square No. 406, lot 9. 
Square No. 433, lots 6 and 7. 
Square No. 435, lots 13-18. 
Square No. 447, lot 20. 
Square No. 456, lot 6. 
Square No. 465, lot 82. 
Square No. 468, lots 6, 7, 15, 19, and 26-28. 
Square No. 469, lot 33. 
Square No. 498, lots 3-11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 

25-32. 
Square No. 502, lot 71. 



Square No. 503, lots 38 and 44. 

Square No. 568, lot 21. 

Square No. 578, lot 2. 

All of square No. 591. 

Square west of No. 597. 

Square south of No. 612. 

Square south of No. 613. 

Square No. 634, lot 16. 

Square south of No. 667, lots 7, 8, 9, and 

12. 
All of east of south of south of No'. 667. 
Square No. 681, lot 16. 
South of square No. 708. 
Square No. 728, lots 6 and 9. 
Square No. 787, lot 12. 
Part of square No. 825. 
Square No. 835, lot 7. 
Square No. 836, lot 12. 
Square No. 898, lots 1, 2, 3, 7-10, and 16. 
Square No. 921, lot 2. 
Square No. 941, lot 1. 
Square No. 945, lot 6. 
Square No. 965, lots 2, 5, and 8 and parts 

of 5 and 6. 
Square No. 996, lot 9 (west 25 feet). 
Part of square south of No. 1001. 
Square No. 1012, lot 2. 
Square No. 1036, lots 6 and 11. 
Square No. 1041, lot 2. 
Square south of No. 1048. 
Square north of No. 1053. 
Square south of No. 1080. 
Square No. 1105,' lots 1, 2, and 20. 
Square No. 1113, lots 2, 3, and 4. 



LEGAL TITLE UNACCOMPANIED BY EQUITABLE INTEREST. 

The instances in which the United States has the legal title to prop- 
erty in the original city of Washington unaccompanied by any equi- 
table interest arise out of failure to record instruments of conveyance 
within six months from their dates. In an opinion to the Secretary 



24 TITLE pF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

of War, dated March 8, 1911 (29 Opinions, p. 1), the Attorney Gen- 
eral said : 

In view of the positive and nonambiguous requirements of the laws of Maryland 
relating to the recording of titles * * * and the manifest purpose of the legislature 
that when these certificates (certificates of sale by the commissioners of the city of 
Washington) were given the effect of deeds, they should be subject to the same 
laws with reference to recording, I am strongly inclined to the opinion that inasmuch 
as this certificate was not recorded until seven years after its issuance, it did not pass 
to Polock the legal title to lot 10. 

This was a case affecting a lot a part of which is included in the 
foregoing list, viz, lot 10, of square 74. A certificate dated July 22, 
1797, was issued by the commissioners, but was not recorded until 
May 30, 1803. In the opinion of the Attorney General this certificate 
did not pass the legal title. The statute which the Attorney Gen- 
eral cited in this opinion is the act of the Maryland Legislature of 
December 19, 1791 (Kilty's Laws of Maryland, 1791, chap. 45), 
which provided: 

That no deed hereafter to be made of or for lands within that part of the said terri- 
tory which lies within this State shall operate as a legal conveyance * * * unless 
the deed shall have been * * * delivered to the said clerk to be recorded within 
six calendar months from the date thereof. 

The legal title, therefore, remained in the United States and the 
Attorney General held that a deed from the Chief of Engineers was 
necessary to clear the title in the present holder of the property. This 
decision applies to the following parcels: 

Square No. 22, lot 1. — In the division between the public and the 
original proprietors, this lot was assigned to the public. There is an 
entry in the journal for 1808-1817, page 39, of a sale of this lot to Na- 
thaniel G. Maxwell, for $688.82. In ledger B, on page 219, under date 
of May 24, 1811, the account of sales of lots is charged with the above 
amount received from N. G. Maxwell. No record of a conveyance 
for this lot is found in the land records until July 11, 1887. Under 
this date, in liber 1267, folio 390, of the land records, there is a certifi- 
cate from Thomas Monroe, superintendent of the city. and successor 
to the original commissioners, to N. G. Maxwell, and dated October 3, 
1812. The law requiring the enrollment of certificates within six 
months was in effect in the District of Columbia until April 20, 1838 
(see 5 Stats., 226); and this certificate, which would have passed the 
title if recorded within six months of its date, failed of its effect and 
the legal title to this lot still remains in the United States. The 
property is now a portion of subdivision 7, of square No. 22, com- 
prising the entire original square and is assessed to Christian Heurich 
and Augustus B. Coppes, trustees. 

Square No. 74, lots 6 and 7, and parts of 5, 10, 12, and 13. — This 
square shows the only instance in which land was divided by portions 
of lots. A dividing line between the properties of Benjamin Stoddert 
and Robert Peter ran through lots 5, 12, and 13 in this square. By 
an agreement which probably resulted from James Greenleaf being a 
purchaser of Stoddert's property, as well as of a large amount of 
property from the commissioners, the portions of the lots on Stoddert's 
side of the line were assigned to Greenleaf, and the parts on Robert 
Peter's side were assigned to the public. On December 28, 1795 
(liber B, folio 505) Robert Morris et al., assignees of James Greenleaf, 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 25 

conveyed to Isaac Polock those portions of lots 5, 12, and 13 that lay 
on Stoddert's side of the line and on July 22, 1797, the commissioners 
issued two certificates conveying to Isaac Polock lots 6, 9, and 10, 
and those parts of lots 5, 12, and 13 not conveyed to Polock by the 
deed of Morris et al. These certificates, as previously stated, were 
not recorded ' until May 30, 1803, and appear on page 382 of liber 
K, of the land records of the District of Columbia. Upon the status 
of the title being called to the attention of the owners of lots derived 
from original lot 10, application was made by them to the Chief of 
Engineers for a quitclaim deed, and on reference of the matter to the 
Attorney General an opinion favorable to the application was given 
as previously cited. A quitclaim deed for all of original lot 10, 
except the east 18 feet, 4 inches by 42 feet was given to Frederick L. 
Vogt and Rosina Kaiser by the Chief of Engineers under date of 
June 10, 1911. This deed was recorded June 20, 1911, in liber 3417, 
folio 483. 

The transaction indicated by the two certificates is established by 
the following records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds: 
On December 5, 1796, as shown by a paper filed with the division 
sheet for square 74, Morris and Nicholson assigned their right of 
purchase of the public lots in square 74 to Isaac Polock. In the 
journal for 1795-1808, page 163, there is an entry under date of 
July 17, 1797, crediting Morris and Nicholson with $295.32, the 
amount paid for 19,437 square feet of land in lots 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 
and 13, square 74, and ledger 2, pages 119 and 154, contains the 
appropriate postings of this entry from the journal. It follows that 
although the United States has the legal title to lots 6 and 9, and 
parts of 5, 10, 12, and 13, of square 74, it has parted with the right 
to possession. Owing to the consolidation of the parts of lots in 
this square and the several subdivisions which have been made, it 
would probably require a survey to determine which of the present 
subdivisions are affected by the status of the original lots and parts 
of lots in which the legal title is outstanding in the United States. 
It would appear that the action of the Chief of Engineers in the 
matter of a portion of lot 10 established a precedent under which 
other occupants of the property affected could complete their title 
upon satisfactory evidence of the location and equitable ownership 
of their holdings. 

Square No. 82. — This square was assigned to the public in the original 
division, and remained as property of the United States until Decem- 
ber 31, 1830. Under this date there is an entry in the Journal for 
1815-1833, debiting the Patriotic Bank with $212.20, the amount 
paid by John G. McDonald for square 82. The system of bookkeeping 
at that time was to carry a running account with the bank, debiting 
it with amounts received for sales of lots, etc., and crediting it with 
the amounts paid out for expenses. The amount of McDonald's pay- 
ment is included in an appropriate entry for that date in ledger 3, 
page 19, and a certificate was issued dated July 1, 1830, indicating 
that McDonald's payment was in the form of a six-month note. 
This certificate was not recorded until April 6, 1837, and was invali- 
dated by the Maryland law above cited, which did not lose its force 



26 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



until 1838. The legal title to this square is therefore in the United 
States. It is now assessed as follows: 



Lot. 


Square 
feet. 


Ground. 


Improve- 
ments. 


Name assessed. 


1 


322 
470 
618 
624 
624 
624 
624 
624 
832 
720 


§242 
306 
402 
406 
406 
406 
406 
406 
624 
432 
524 
464 
438 
373 
309 
244 
399 


SSOO 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 

1,200 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
800 


M. F. Brennan. 


2 


Mary R. Reade. 


3 


Wilioughby Reade. 
Do. 


4 


5 


Do. 


6 


Do. 


7 


William H. Singleton. 
Ellen Lawler. 


8 


9 


Do. 


10 ; 


Thomas M. Allen, jr. 

Do. 
Anna I. Smoot. 


11 

12 


873 
773 


13 


674 
574 
475 
375 
532 


Sallie B. Craig. 


14 


Do. 


15 


Bernard Conroy. 

Josiah Q. and Edith K. Kern. 


16 


17 


Gilbert Leventhal and Henry Oxenburg. 





Square No. 86, lot 2; square No. 433, lots 6 and 7. — These lots were 
originally assigned to the United States and were included in the 
number which Greenleaf, Morris, and Nicholson contracted to buy. 
The contractors failed to pay for the lots and they were advertised at 
various times in 1797-98 to be sold under the terms of the special act 
of the Maryland Legislature permitting such resales for the nonpay- 
ment of purchase price. Sales book, volume 6, after page 83, of the 
office of Public Buildings and Grounds contains an entry of the sale 
of these lots at public auction on September 13, 1798, to John F 
Mercer and a certificate of this resale is on file with the division sheet 
for square No. 86. 

In journal No. 3, page 233, there is a credit entry in favor of 
Morris and Nicholson of $180, payment by John F. Mercer, under date 
of December 3, 1798, and on page 236, under date of January 3, 1799, 
there is a similar entry of credit to Morris and Nicholson of $430, 
" received of John Mercer for lots bought by him at auction." The 

Srice of the lots having been charged to the account of Morris and 
[icholson they were credited with the $610, principal and interest 
paid by Mercer. The credits are posted in Morris and Nicholson's 
account in ledger B, page 171. 

A deed in the usual form, given in cases of resale is recorded in Liber 
D, F. 412. This deed is dated March 26, 1799, and was not recorded 
until November 5, 1799, or a month and nine days after it had failed 
of its legal effect for lackof enrollment. Although Mercer undoubtedly 
bought and paid for the lots, the conveyance became invalidated by 
nonenrollment, and the legal title to these lots is still in the United 
States. These lots are assessed as follows: 

Square No. 86, lot 2. 



Portion. 


Square 
feet. 


Value of 
land. 


Value of 
improve- 
ments. 


Assessed to — 


East 17.87 feet 


922 
1,143 
1,246 


$1,106 
1,372 
1,495 


$2, 200 
2,200 
2,200 


Amy G. Henry. 


Next 16.33 feet 


Edward T. Beery. 


West 17.80 feet 


John N. and Ella C. 




Hester. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 27 

Square No. JfiS. — The south 11 feet of lot 6 and all of lot 7, contain- 
ing 7,558 square feet; value, $7,558; improvements, $5,400; assessed 
to Sarah E. Brewer. 

Sublots 30-36, containing 9.834 square feet; land valuation, 
$11,276; improvements, $10,600; are assessed to George R. Linkins 
and Julius I. Peyser, trustees. 

Walter Stewart's property. 

This property includes lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, in square 200; lots 1, 2, 
3, and 16, in square 225; and lots 15 and 19, in square No. 254. 

These were among the lots included in considerable purchases made 
by Gen. Walter Stewart, of Philadelphia, on March 31, 1793. and 
February 12. 1795, being specifically the lots which were purchased 
in 1793. At the time of purchase Stewart was given a certificate, 
which is recorded in liber B. F. 301, acknowledging the receipt of one- 
fourth of the purchase money and stating that upon the completion 
of the payments Stewart would be entitled to a conveyance in fee. 

There is an entry in the proceedings of the commissioners for 1800- 
1802, page, 290, which states that a certificate in fee was issued to 
Deborah Stewart for the above-mentioned lots on May 3, 1802. 

Such a certificate is on record in liber J. A. S. 171, of the land 
records at folio 276. It recites payment for the lots by Walter 
Stewart, and his right to a conveyance in fee, and is dated May 3, 
1802. If it had been recorded within six months of its date it would 
have passed the legal estate. It was not so recorded, and the above 
record is dated March 23, 1859. This belated act of recording is 
probably a later attempt to establish a record title. 

On March 26, 1807, Thomas Monroe, then superintendent of public 
buildings, filed a certificate in chancery cause No. 16, Docket 1, 
William Deakins's executors against Deborah Stewart et al., that 
Walter Stewart had bought and paid for these lots. This certificate 
and the condition of Walter Stewart's account on the books of the 
commissioners appeared, at first sight, to be inconsistent, since the 
account showed that there was still a balance due the United States 
of $3,494.85. This seemed to remove these lots from the list of 
those in which only the naked legal title remained in the United 
States, and to indicate that there was still some equitable interest of 
the Federal Government in this property, which is extremely valuable, 
being located in the heart of the city. Analysis of the account, 
however, showed that the purchase price had not only been fully 
paid but that considerable amounts had been paid on the price of the 
lots purchased on February 12, 1795; that the interest had been fully 
paid and that the balance stated, of nearly $3,500, was in a degree 
fictitious, since it represented the difference between the price which 
Stewart had agreed to pay for the lots and the price that they had 
realized on the forced resale provided for by the Maryland law, 



28 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



Walter Stewart's account, as it appears in Ledger B, page 72, if con- 
solidated and restated, stands in the following form: 

Dr. Or. 

To lots purchased Mar. 31, By payments and interest 

1793 $2, 666. 67 thereon to Aug. 30, 1797. . . $13, 448. 12 

To interest on above and on Balance due the United 

lots purchased Feb . 12, 1795, States 3. 494. 85 

to Aug. 30, 1797 2,357.58 

To expense of sales 15. 00 

To difference between original 
price of lots purchased Feb. 
12, 1795, and amounts real- 
ized from resale of same. ... 11, 903. 72 

Total 16, 942. 97 

It will be seen that Stewart and his estate actually made payments 
and were entitled to interest to the total amount of $13,448.12; and 
that the purchase price of the above lots with interest on the two 
purchases up to the time when the lots of the second purchase were 
resold, amounted, with a small item of expense, to $5,039.25, leaving 
$8,411.87 which the estate paid on the lots which were taken away 
from it and resold. 

The commissioners were, therefore, justified in issuing a certificate 
in fee for the lots of the first purchase. 

The analysis of Walter Stewart's account above given disposes of 
any question as to a possible equitable interest of the United States 
in this property, and by letter of May 1, 1911, the chairman of this 
commission suggested to the Secretary of War that it would be ap- 
propriate to make a correction of this account so that any applica- 
tion which might be made for a deed to complete this transaction 
might not be prejudiced by the apparent existence of a balance due 
the United States. 

This suggestion has been followed and the books of the original 
commissioners now show a correct analysis of this account. The 
lots now affected are assessed as follows: 



Portion. 



Square 
feet. 


Land 
value. 


Improve- 
ments. 


701 


$1,507 




3,750 
5,152 
5,853 


18, 750 
16, 744 
16,096 






$7,000 


29, 509 


501,653 


700,000 


1,915 

2,747 


26,810 
38, 458 


30,000 
15,000 


6,043 
7,076 


108,774 
106, 140 


80,000 
18,000 



Assessed to— 



Square No. 200 of lot 8. 

Background 

Lot 9 

Lot 10 

Lot 11 

Square No. 225. 

Sub 26 (including original lots 1, 
2, and 16). 

Sub 27 

Of lot 3, west 26.67 feet 

Square No. 254- 

Lot 15 

Lot 19 ^. 



Woodbury Blair and National Safe De- 
posit, Savings & Trust Co., trustees. 

Anne W. Penfield. 
Do. 

Woodbury Blair and National Safe De- 
posit, Savings & Trust Co., trustees. 



J. J. Darlington and E. J. Stellwagen, 

trustees. 
Henry A. Willard (estate), 
Kate Dean Owen and Jessie Owen 

Cogle. 

Estate of C. C. Willard. 
Do. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



29 



As previously stated, the outstanding title of the United States to 
all of lot 8, square 200, except 701 feet background, has been con- 
veyed by the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army to the 
occupants and equitable owners of the property, the vestry of St. 
John's Church. 

MISSING CERTIFICATES AND. DEEDS. 

The status of the lots considered in the following paragraphs 
differs from others in which the legal title remains in the United 
States in that no form of conveyances have been found in the land 
records of the District of Columbia. While entries in the commis- 
sioners' proceedings in several cases indicate that certificates were 
issued, they do not appear to have been recorded at all. This 
omissio^ however, does not seem materially to affect the main 
question to be determined, which is whether the United States 
actually sold and received payment fq£ these lots. If this can be 
shown by official records, the absence of any form of conveyance does 
not alter the situation materially, since a conveyance unless recorded 
within six months of its date would have had no effect, and its exist- 
ence would simply be cumulative evidence that the United States 
had actually parted with its equitable interest and held only the 
record title. 

The evidence that the United States sold certain lots for which 
conveyances have not been found is given in the following paragraphs: 

Square No. 57, lot 4- — Thete is a certificate on record in liber B, 
page 313, dated September 19, 1793, reciting that Marsham Waring 
purchased this lot and paid one-fourth of the purchase price. An 
entry of this sale appears in sales book 6, page 6. No certificate 
has been found acknowledging the completion of the payment, and 
the establishment of this fact depends upon entries in journal 3, page 
156, and ledger B, page 55, showing that on June 6, 1797, Marsham 
Waring paid $48.62, the balance of his account which was then 
closed. Waring had been charged with the price of this lot in this 
account and the payment of the balance due seems to complete the 
evidence required that the United States was paid for this lot. 
In the absence of a duly recorded certificate the legal title remains in 
the United States. This lot is now assessed as follows: 



Lot. 


Square 
feet. 


Ground. 


Improve- 
ments. 


Name assessed. 


34 


1,409 

730 

729 

729 

729 

729 

1,273 

1,408 

1,346 


$1, 127 
438 
437 
437 
437 
437 
700 
774 
808 


$2, 000 

500 
500 
500 
500 
500 
300 
300 
1,500 


Michael Moore. 


35 . 


Edgar L. Anderson. 


36 


Frank W. and Catherine S. Hill. 


37 


Julia A. Banagan. 


38 


John K. Halley. 
John Imirie. 


39 


40 


S. Norris Thome. 


41 


Do. 


54 


Carrie M. McMichael. 







Square No. 80, lot 3. — This lot was assigned to the United States 
and appears by ledger entries to have been sold to Benjamin Stoddeit 
on September 19, 1793, for £60. The charge for the lot is found 
in ledger A, page 105. The charge is balanced by an entry dated 



30 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



September 18, 1794, transferring the charge to the account with For- 
rest and Stoddert appearing on page 124, ledger A, and forwarded to 
page 36 of ledger B, where under date of March 1, 1797, it is closed by 
a credit of $734.94, part for cash and the remainder a credit for 
ground taken for public use. 

There seems to be competent evidence of the sale of and payment 
for this lot, and in commissioners' proceedings 1791-1795, page 277, 
there is a form of certificate stated to have been granted September 
18, 1794. This certificate seems not to have been recorded. 

In the subsequent transactions with this lot no interest of the 
United States seems to have been asserted and there is no reason to 
suppose that the United States has more than the naked legal title 
due to the failure to record the conveyance. This lot is now included 
in sublots 31-33, which are assessed to William H. Kapley and the 
estate of W. W. Rapley. A bill authorizing the Secretary of War to 
convey the interest of the United States (S. 20) passed the Senate 
June 20, 1911, and awaits action by the House of Representatives. 

Square No. 126, lot 28. — There is a certificate on record in liber B, 
folio 283, reciting the sale of this lot to Peter Casanave and the pay- 
ment of one-quarter of the purchase price, certificate in fee to be 
issued on the completion of the payment for the lot. The purchase 
price, £101, is charged to Casanave October 17, 1791, in ledger 
A, page 4, and the account is carried to ledger B, page 29, where it 
is settled in January, 1795. No record has been found of an instru- 
ment completing the conveyance, and the legal title seems to be out- 
standing in the United States. The lot is now assessed in two por- 
tions to Joseph Taber Johnson, with a total area of 1,840 square 
feet; land value, $8,280; improvements, $20,000. . 

Square 126, lot 29. — This lot was assigned to the United States and 
is listed in sales book No. 6, list No. 1, as having been sold to Thomas 
Lee Shippen on October 17, 1791. A certificate of this sale of the 
above date is recorded in liber B, at folio 283. This acknowledges 
only one-fourth payment and did not convey the title. Shippen's 
account in ledger A, page 4, is charged with £115, the purchase 
price of the lot, and the balance is carried to ledger B, page 46. 
There is a credit entry dated May 30, 1795, balancing the account. 
Nothing appears indicating the issuance of a certificate in fee, and 
no such certificate has been found of record. It seems, therefore, 
that although the lot was sold, the record title is still outstanding in 
the United States. This lot, with a portion of original lot 27, has 
been subdivided into sublots 47 and 48, which are assessed as follows: 



Sublot. 


Square 
feet. 


Land 
value. 


Improve- 
ments. 


Assessed to — 


47 


1,440 
1,440 


$5,760 
5,760 


$3,700 
4,000 


Henry W. Irving. 


18 


Charles M. Thomas. 







Square No. 166, lot 20. — No record of a conveyance of this lot has 
been found. There is a charge at page 105, of ledger A, of this lot to 
Benjamin Stoddert, at a price of £60, under date of September 19, 
1793. This charge is balanced by a credit on September 18, 1794, 
by amount charged to Forrest and Stoddert, and the account of the 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 31 

latter was balanced March 1, 1797, as previously stated. As in the 
case of other Forrest and Stoddert property, the legal title to this lot 
seems to be outstanding in the United States. The lot is now- 
assessed to the Metropolitan Club and consists of the west 22.50 feet 
of original lot 20 and sublot No. 30. Total area, 12,007 square feet; 
land value, $45,091; improvements, $170,000. 

Square No. 224, l°t $• — Sales book No. 6, list No. 2, gives the sale 
of this lot October 8, 1792 to David Burnes. Burnes is charged with 
the price of this lot in ledger A, page 48, and his account is settled 
by credits for public ground taken and the costs of a suit in court. 
The credits are dated June 20-27, 1796, ledger B, page 50. At the 
time of the original sale a certificate for this lot was issued to Burnes 
(liber B, f. 286), but only one-fourth payment was acknowledged. 
Although there seems to be evidence that the United States received 
the full purchase price for this lot no certificate in fee appears to 
have been recorded, leaving the legal title in the United States. 

The major portion of this lot is now included in sublot 18, the sub- 
division made by the Biggs Realty Co. including frontage on Fif- 
teenth and G Streets. The remainder of the lot, being the south 13 
feet, is assessed to the National Metropolitan Bank. Area, 1,300 feet; 
land value, $23,400. 

Square No. 225, lot 6. — As shown by sales book No. 6, list No. 4, this 
lot was originally sold to Peter Gilman, October 22, 1792. This lot is 
charged to Gilman in ledger A, under the above date, the purchase price 
being £100. There is a credit of payment by Col. William Deakins of 
£25. The balance of £75 was carried to ledger B, at page 42, where it 
was paid January 28, 1797, by Gilman's part of Deakins's note. Dea- 
kins seems to have been acting for Samuel Blodget, as in Commis- 
sioners' Proceedings for 1798-1800, page 425, there is an entry that a 
certificate was executed August 28, 1800, to Samuel Blodget for this 
lot, the former certificate, dated January 13, 1800, not having been 
recorded. A portion of this lot was sold by a trustee in the creditor 
proceedings against Blodget, and while the full course of title has not 
been worked out, the foregoing seems to show that any record title 
which may still be vested in the United States is without accompa- 
nying equitable interest. The lot is now assessed to William Cor- 
coran Eustis. Area, 6,583 square feet; land value, $98,745; improve- 
ments, $4,000. 

Square No. 254, lot 20. — This lot is involved in a proceeding now on 
the calendar of the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 314, 
Joseph Parker Camp, appellant, v. The Devisees in Trust under the 
last will of Caleb C. Willard, deceased. This is an appeal from a 
decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirming 
an injunction in the lower court restraining Camp, the appellant, from 
prosecuting suits in ejectment against the devisees of Willard. In the 
opinion of the Court of Appeals (record, p. 227) the court said: 

Said lot was sold by the United States commissioners to Samuel Blodget, jr., but no 
conveyance was made to him, hence he acquired only an equitable fee-simple interest. 

The transactions of Samuel Blodget with the commissioners of the 
city are somewhat obscure. That he was employed by them in some 
capacity is indicated by the fact that in closing his account a credit 
was given him for salary earned. He seems to have been an agent 
only for the commissioners in the purchase of a number of lots which 



32 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



he seems to have " bid in' ' at the forced resales. His relations with 
the commissioners at the inception of the lottery scheme for raising 
money on the public lots seem to have been friendly, although the 
commissioners later entirely repudiated him and his scheme with 
reference to the "Grand Hotel" on the site where the Land Office 
Building now stands. 

Whatever may have been the fact as to other lots, it seems to have 
been understood and agreed that Blodget had full property rights 
in lot 20 of square 254. The commissioners' proceedings for 17.98- 
1800, page 425, under date of August 28, 1800, contain an entry 
that a certificate in fee was granted Samuel Blodget in lieu of a cer- 
tificate not recorded. Blodget had been charged with the purchase 
price of this lot, 80 pounds, on October 18, 1792. (Ledger A, page 
52.) His account was carried to Ledger B, page 51, where it was 
closed on December 31, 1795, by a credit for a year's salary. Sales 
book No. 6 also has an entry of the sale of this lot to Blodget on 
October 8, 1792, in the second list of sales therein. 

After coming into possession of this lot, Blodget gave three leases 
for 99 years each, reserving a ground rent, as shown by the record 
in the above-mentioned case. These ground rents were sold by 
order of the court in the proceedings brought by Blodget's credi- 
tors, but the superintendent of the city did not join in the deed, 
and it has been stated by the court in both the Supreme Court of 
the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals that the legal 
title is still outstanding in the United States and this defect appears 
in the record as a reason for bringing proceedings in equity. As 
the disposition of this property will be determined by the present 
suit, it would be inadvisable for the United States to take any action 
with respect to the outstanding legal title except in accordance with 
the order or decree of the Supreme Court of the United States and 
it should, therefore, be understood that this lot is excepted from any 
general recommendation which may be made as to the disposition of 
outstanding legal titles. 

The lot is now included in sublots 28 and 29, assessed as follows: 



Sublot. 


Square 
feet. 


Land 
value. 


Improve- 
ments. 


Assessed to— 


28 


4,154 
4,102 


$62,310 
61, 531 


$1,700 
1,800 


Estate of Caleb C. Willard. 


29 


Do. 







Square No. Ifi6, lot 9. — This lot was assigned to the public on divi- 
sion. In sales book No. 6, list 7 has a memorandum of the sale of 
lots 9 and 10, square 406, to George and Andrew Thompson, June 25, 
1794, at a price of £220. There is a charge of this amount to 
George and Andrew Thompson at page 133 of ledger A, on the above 
date. The account is carried to page 48 of ledger B, and owing to 
delay in payment these lots were advertised for sale June 8, 1797. 
They were, however, withdrawn, and on May 23, 1799, George Thomp- 
son paid the balance of the account, $448.95. He did not take out 
certificates for the lots, although he entered into a form of agreement 
dated February 13, 1801, with his co-purchaser (liber F, folio 197), by 
which lot 9 was taken by Andrew and lot 10 by George. The latter 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



33 



assigned his lot to James McCormick, who took out a certificate dated 
June 7, 1811, recorded in liber AC, folio 54. Nothing appears, how- 
ever, of record showing that Andrew Thompson took out a certificate 
for lot 9. There seems to be no question as to the sale or payment 
for this lot, but the legal title was never conveyed and is still out- 
standing in the United States. The property is now assessed as 
follows : 





Square 
feet. 


Value of 
ground. 


Value of 
improve- 
ments. 


Assessed to— 


Sub. 15 


3,478 
1,542 


$27, 824 
12,336 


$3, 500 
3,000 


Robert M. Sutton and Fannie L. Johnson. 


Of 9, east 15.42 


John D. Rocca, executor and trustee. 







Square No. 456, lot 6. — This lot was assigned to the United States 
and the first evidence indicating the sale is contained in sales book 
No. 6, list No. 4, where there is an entry of a sale to George Howell 
on March 18, 1793. A charge of this lot to Howell at a purchase price 
equivalent to $221.66 is made in ledger A, page 87. There is a note of 
assignment filed with the division sheet of square 200, in which 
Howell assigns this with other lots to Samuel Griffin under date of 
May 8, 1795. In the Commissioners' Proceedings for 1796-97, page 
11, under date of September 14, 1797, there is an entry that a certifi- 
cate in fee was granted for the above lot to George Howell. In the 
original charge for this lot in ledger A there is also a credit by Thomas 
Contee's note. Contee's account is charged with the above note at 
page 88 of ledger A, and this account is carried to ledger B, page 31, 
where there is an entry of payment in full on October 19, 1795. The 
evidence shows the sale of the lot, although the legal estate appears 
to be outstanding in the United States. 

The lot is now assessed as follows: 



Square 
feet. 


Land 
value. 


Value of 
improve- 
ments. 


2,432 
1,899 

1,911 

1,586 


$4,864 
4,273 

4,778 
1,824 


$5,000 
3,000 

3,200 
2,000 



Assessed to- 



East 19.75 feet 

19.58 feet next to the west 
20.58 feet. 

West 20.58 feet 

Background 



Edwin H. Neumyer. 

George R. Linkins and Julius I. Peyser,. 

trustees. 
Michael Willian. 
Amnon Behrend. 



Square No. 634, lot 16. — This lot is now sublot 39 of square No. 
634, the dimensions of the lot not having been changed on the resub- 
division. Elizabeth R. Talty, 1911 F Street NW., has a life estate 
in the property, with a remainder to Robert C. Talty and Richard 
C. R. Talty. The property begins 168 feet 2 inches south of the south- 
west corner of North Capitol and C Streets north and is 54 feet 6 
inches front on North Capitol Street. The present owners have 
exhibited notes of title signed by M. Ashford, dated March 15, 1886, 
The opinion says : 

Our land records show no conveyance to George Washington of said lot. It is said 
that a conveyance from the United States Commissioners to George Washington was 



52069— S. Rept. 907, 62-2- 



34 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

filed in the chancery cause (35 Doc, 1), but no paper can now be found among the 
papers of the said cause. 

Mr. Ashford reports the record title to be good except for the failure 
to show a deed from the United States, but refers to the probability 
that the records of the office of the commissioner of public buildings 
would present evidence that Gen. George Washington purchased and 
paid for the lot. This evidence is contained in the following extracts 
from the commissioners' proceedings (Vol. 1797-98, p. 217, dated 
Sept. 25, 1798): 

Gen. Washington, of Mount Vernon, having expressed the wish to purchase lot No. 
16 in square 634 and to build thereon two brick houses three stories high and covering 
2,000 feet within two years from this time, the board agrees to sell the said lot to him, 
the said Gen. Washington, for 10 cents the square foot, containing 5,357 square feet, 
one-third payable in ready money and the other two-thirds in two equal annual install- 
ments from this date but without interest on condition of his building the two houses 
aforesaid within the time above mentioned. 

There is the following entry in the commissioners' journal for 
1795-1808, page 226: 

Gen. Geo. Washington, Dr., to sales of lots for lot No. 16, square 634, contain- 
ing 5,357 square feet, at 10 cents per square foot, sold the 15th ultimo as per 
proceedings of that day $535. 70 

This is dated October 1, 1798. On the same page with the same 
date there is the following entry: 

Gen. Geo. Washington, in part for lot 16, square 634, purchased the 15th ul- 
timo $178. 57 

These entries are carried to the ledger for 1795-1816, page 56, 
where Gen. Washington is charged with the price of the lot, $535.70, 
and $3.19 interest and credited with the above payment of $178.57, 
also with a payment on November 19, 1799, of $178.57 and on Janu- 
ary 4, 1801, of $181.75, balancing the account, the total amount of 
which was $538.89. Under date of March 16, 1801, or two months 
and fourteen days later than the last payment by Gen. Washington 
for this lot, there is the following entry in the commissioners' pro- 
ceedings (Commissioners' proceedings, 1800-1802, p. 125) : 

Deed granted in fee simple to William Augustus Washington, Bushrod Washington, 
George Steptoe Washington, Samuel Washington, Lawrence Lewis, and George Wash- 
ington Parke Custis, executors of the late Gen. George Washington, for the use of his 
legatees, lot No. 16 in square No. 634. 

As stated by Mr. Ashford, no deed has been found of record either 
to George Washington or to his executors. The record of the chan- 
cery suit referred to by Mr. Ashford is contained in liber U. F., 1, page 
502, and the papers are filed under Doc. 1, No. 35. The original bill 
of complaint recites that Gen. Washington was seized in fee simple of 
lots 5, 12, 13, and 14 in square No. 667, and that his will was not so 
authenticated as to be sufficient to pass the title to real estate situ- 
ated in the District of Columbia. A division among the heirs was 
prayed for and the answer of Bushrod Washington, executor, admit- 
ted the allegation and agreed to the division. This bill was filed 
October 2, 1805, and a commission was issued to divide or value the 
estate. An amended bill was filed April 13, 1810, after this commis- 
sion had made its return, stating that Gen. Washington had also died 
seized of lots 6, 7, and 16, square 634, and praying that the former 
return be set aside and a new commission ordered, including these 



TITLE OP THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 35 

lots. A second commission was duly issued and return made, and 
George C. Washington was appointed trustee to sell the property. 
On November 30, 1816, he reported the sale of lot 16, square No. 634, 
to David English for 13*. cents per square foot. On November 6, 
1817, the sale was confirmed by the court. A deed for this lot by 
Washington to English, dated November 18, 1817, is recorded in 
liber A. Q,, 41, F. 13. 

Square No. 728, lot 6. — This lot seems to have been originally selected 
for purchase by Samuel Blodget, but in journal 37, page 224, dated 
May 30, 1795, there is a charge for the lot to Nathaniel Phillips as 
having been sold to Phillips by Blodget on March 31, 1793. There is 
on record in Liber B, folio 304, a certificate of the above date of the 
sale of the lot to Phillips for $266.66 with acknowledgement of one- 
fourth payment. The charge for the lot to Phillips is posted in ledger 
B, page 89, and the account is balanced January 28, 1797, by an 
amount received from Samuel Blodget. In the proceedings of 1800- 
1802, page 186, is an entry that a certificate in fee was granted 
Nathaniel Phillips for this lot July 17, 1801. The evidence thus seems 
to be complete as to the disposition of the lot, but no certificate 
acknowledging the final payment has been found of record and the 
legal title seems to be outstanding in the United States. 

This lot containing 6,137 square feet; land value, $7,978; improve- 
ments $2,700, is assessed to Fendall E. Alexander and others. 

Square No. 728, lot 9. — Sales book No. 6, list No. 4, indicates the sale 
of this lot to George Howell, March 18, 1793, for an amount equivalent 
to $221.66. Howell is charged with this amount in ledger 1, page 87, 
and credited with the same amount the same date and page, by 
Thomas Contee's note. Contee is charged with the note at ledger A, 
page 88, and in ledger B, page 31, under date of October 19, 1795, 
there is an entry of the settlement of the note in full. On May 8, 
1795, as shown by a paper filed with the division sheet for square 200, 
Howell assigned his interest in the lot to Samuel Griffin. In the 
Commissioners' Proceedings for 1796-97 there is an entry under date of 
September 14, 1797, that a certificate in fee was granted Samuel 
Griffin, assignee of George Howell, for this and other lots. No con- 
veyance has been found of record and the legal title appears to be 
outstanding in the United States. 

The east half of this lot, containing 3,069 square feet, land value 
$3,990, improvements, $1,000, is assessed to Anna H. Hays. The 
west half, 3,068 square feet, land value $3,988, is assessed to Arthur 
G. Bishop. 

INCOMPLETE EVIDENCE AS TO PAYMENT. 

In the foregoing cases, reasonably complete chains of circum- 
stances indicate the actual receipt by the United States of the pur- 
chase price of the property involved. There are lots as to which there 
is no account book record of the payment of the purchase price. 
The evidence which appears makes a strong presumption in favor 
of the conclusion that the payment took place, and there is no proba- 
bility that the United States will be found to have any equitable 
interest in the property. The evidence as to the sale of these lots 
is contained in the following paragraphs: 

Square No. 86, lot 5. — This lot was originally assigned to the 
United States and was selected by Morris and Nicholson, who assigned 



36 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



their interest to Uriah Forrest on November 12, 1796. (See division 
sheet, square 1 ; also liber B, folio 577.) The commissioners, however, 
advertised this interest of Morris and Nicholson for sale June 2, 1800, 
and on August 6, 1800, seem to have sold the lot to Benjamin Stoddert. 
Sales book 6, after page 186, contains an entry to this effect. Also, 
that the lot was conveyed to Uriah Forrest February 27, 1801. In 
the commissioners' proceedings of 1800-1802, at page 116, there is 
the following entry: 

February 27, 1801. Deed executed to Uriah Forrest, assignee of Benjamin Stoddert, 
of lot 3, square 86. 

Under date of February 28 there is the entry: 

The deed executed yesterday to Uriah Forrest acknowledged before two magistrates. 

No entry has been found with reference to this lot in the journal 
of the commissioners, and there is, therefore, no direct evidence that 
the purchase price was actually paid. The presumption is that the 
lot was paid for and that the payment is involved in some transaction 
that is not identified with this lot in the account books of the com- 
missioners. The case can not, however, be classed with those in 
which evidence of payment clearly appears, and in any event the 
legal title seems to be still outstanding in the United States. 

This lot has been subdivided into sublots 29, 30, and part of 31. 
The latter lot is assessed to Annie E. Wilder. The assessment of 
sublots 29 and 30 is as follows: 



Sublot. 



Square 
feet. 



29. 
30. 



1,400 
1,120 



Land 
value. 



$1,820 
1,456 



Value of 
improve- 
ments. 



$2, 500 
3,300 



Assessed to — 



Elmer H. Sotheron. 
Dora M. Sotheron. 



Square No. 568, lot 21. — An entry in sales book No. 6, after page 
136, states that this lot, with others, was sold at auction August 28, 
1799, to Samuel Blodget. It was resold in 1802 and an entry in 
sales book, volume 6, after page 236, states that it was sold at auction 
August 30, 1802, to Benjamin Stoddert at $6. There is the further 
notation, "October 20, 1802, paid and conveyed." The other lots 
involved in the same entry, being lots 18-28, inclusive, were conveyed 
to Stoddert by a deed dated October 29, 1802, recorded in Liber I, 
folio 94. Lot 21 is not included in the property conveyed by this 
deed and its omission may have been an oversight. 

No entry of this transaction has been found in the journal or ledger 
of the commissioners. The sale indicated was made very shortly 
after the original commissioners went out of office, on June 1, 1802, 
and the returns from sales of lots seem for a time to have been used 
for current expenses, when spot cash was received, without identifying 
entries in the books. 

The lot is now subdivided into the east 18 feet, containing 1,800 
square feet; land value, $1,530; improvements, $2,400; assessed to 
Bryan Healy; and sublot 35, 2,100 square feet; land value, $1,785; 
improvements, $2,700; assessed to Alfred Shaw. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 37 

Square No. 578, lot 2. — This property was assigned to the United 
States and selected for purchase by Morris and Nicholson. Not hav- 
ing been paid for, it was sold to Samuel Elliot September 20, 1798. 
(Commissioners' proceedings, 1797-98, p. 212.) No account appears 
with Elliot and the lot was resold to Daniel Carroll, of Duddington, 
March 19, 1799, with other lots. (Commissioners' proceedings, 1798- 
1800, p. 88.) Entry of this sale appears in Journal 3, page 244, under 
date of March 22 and was posted in ledger B, page 52. This account 
with Carroll was not closed and shows a debtor balance against Car- 
roll of $19,433.79. There is no credit in the ledger of payment of the 
price of this property, but the proceedings for 1800-1802, page 137, 
under date of April 16, 1801, contain an entry that a deed in fee was 
granted to Daniel Carroll for this lot. This deed does not appear of 
record, but in liber 1068 of the land records of the District of 
Columbia, at folio 124, there is a record under date of January 8, 1884, 
purporting to be a transcript of the entries in the books of the com- 
missioners. There is, however, nothing to show the conveyance of 
the legal estate, which seems to be outstanding in the United States. 

The lot is now subdivided into a number of small lots, of which 
sublots 6, 8, 9, and 18, with a total area of 7,646 square feet, land 
value, $2,914, improvements, $1,600, are assessed to Philip Smith. 
Land in sublots 10, 12, and 13, area 1,854 square feet, land value, 
$931, improvements, $1,400, are assessed to John Daly. Sublots 14 
to 17 are assessed to Francis G. Clark; total area, 8,000 square feet; 
land value, $2,400; no improvements. Sublot 7, 1,812 square feet; 
land value, $544; improvements, $1,000, is assessed to Taylor Knorl, 
and sublot 11, 944 square feet, land value $708, is assessed to Joseph 
E. Willard. 

Square No. 1105, lots 1, 2, and 20. — These three lots are now 
included in the Congressional Cemetery, and are in the possession of 
the vestry of Christ Church. They were assigned to the United 
States on division, and were frequently advertised for sale up to 
August 30, 1802. They do not appear in the list of lots to be sold 
after that date and there is an entry in sales book 6, list No. 236, 
that they were sold at the auction on October 20, 1802, to Frederick 
May at $13 per lot. There are further entries against the original 
items that they were assigned by May to Richard Forrest and that 
Forrest assigned lot 20 to P. J. Beatty. The entry is marked "Paid" 
and there appears not to have been any record of these transactions 
entered in the journal. No entry is found in the proceedings of the 
granting of a conveyance in fee, but such an entry would not be 
likely to appear, as the commissioners had been succeeded by a single 
superintendent. There is an entry as to lot 19 similar to the entries 
for lots 1, 2, and 20, and two years later Ann Cutts, who appears in 
the sales book as assignee of Forrest, received a deed for lot 19, as 
assignee of May and Forrest. (Liber M, folio 51.) Forrest conveyed 
all three lots on December 5, 1820, to Charles A. Beatty, who con- 
veyed to John P. Ritchie on December 11. (Liber W. B., No. 1, 
folios 445, 453.) The evidence as to these lots is the least con- 
clusive of any of the cases in which only a nominal title is outstanding 
in the United States, but the weight of probability is in favor of the 
view that the lots were purchased and paid for and that the United 
States has only the legal title. 



. 38 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

DISPOSITION OF NAKED LEGAL TITLE. 

The conclusions stated in the foregoing sections of this report that 
the legal title of certain lots is still outstanding in the United States 
are based upon a careful search of the land records of the District of 
Columbia. In this work the earlier books containing the greater part 
of the conveyances were carefully paged and the references to later 
conveyances were secured by close scrutiny of the indexes, assisted by 
references found in the books of the office of public buildings and 
grounds. The results of the examination of all of the records con- 
sulted have been assembled in a comprehensive card index and the 
commission has been careful to exhaust the lines of search indicated 
before publication of statements that legal titles were still outstand- 
ing. When the list of such titles was first made up those to whom 
the properties were assessed were communicated with as far as possi- 
ble and further information on the subject of these titles was solicited. 
Certain additional information was found by this method and some 
of the lots originally listed were removed from the list, while in other 
cases the additional information confirmed the results at which the 
commission had arrived. It is, of course, possible that records may 
have been overlooked or misconstrued, but the commission has 
endeavored to proceed with the utmost care and the instances in 
which the conclusions reached have been affirmed by those having 
the equitable interest indicate that the conclusions reached in all 
cases showing similar circumstances are sound. There are, to reca- 
pitulate, three classes of cases in which the legal title is outstanding 
in the United States. The first includes those lots as to which an 
instrument of conveyance is on record which failed of its effect 
because it was not recorded within the period prescribed by law. 
These lots are : 



Square No. 82, all of. 
Square No. 86, lot 2. 
Square No. 433, lots 6 and 7. 



Square No. 22, lotl. 

Square No. 74, lots 6 and 9, and parts of 5, 
10, 12, and 13. 

Also the Walter Stewart lots. 

Square No. 200, lots 8-11. Square No. 254, lots 15 and 19. 

Square No. 225, lots 1, 2, 3, 16. 

The second class includes those lots for which no instruments of 
conveyance are on record but which are clearly shown by the com- 
missioners' books to have been paid for. The lots in this class are : 

Square No. 57, lot 4. 
Square No. 80, lot 3. 
Square No. 126, lots 28 and 29. 
Square No. 166, lot 20. 
Square No. 224, lot 8. 
Square No. 225, lot 6. 



Square No. 254, lot 20. 
Square No. 406, lot 9. 
Square No. 456, lot 6. 
Square No. 634, lot 16. 
Square No. 728, lots 6 and 9. 



The third class consists of lots in regard to which there is a strong 
presumption of payment but no actual record. These are: 



Square No. 86, lot 5. 
Square No. 568, lot 21 



Square No. 578, lot 2. 

Square No. 1105, lots 1, 2, and 20. 



The procedure with reference to the first class of lots has been 
already marked out by the opinion of the Attorney General herein- 
before cited that the Chief of Engineers has power ito execute a deed 
which shall complete the conveyance in each case. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



39 



A precedent for action in the cases of lots contained in the second 
and third classes has been established by the action of the Chief of 
Engineers with reference to lots 3 and 4 in square 103. While it is 
assumed that action in any case would depend upon all the circum- 
stances, there seems to be no obstacle to the completion of a sale by a 
deed from the Chief of Engineers at this time if it can be shown that 
a sale was actually made and the consideration received by the 
United States. 

LOTS INVOLVED IN GREENLEAF, MORRIS, AND NICHOLSON TRANSAC- 
TIONS. 



A considerable amount of study has been devoted to the titles of 
the lots in the original city of Washington, in which the association 
of Greenleaf, Morris, and Nicholson secured sufficient equities so that 
the title to these lots became a part of the assets either of the indi- 
vidual, James Greenleaf, or of the partnership of Morris and Nichol- 
son. It has been stated, and it is probably true, that very considerable 
amounts were derived by the original commissioners of the city as 
the result of their dealings with the three persons above mentioned. 
It is also apparent, however, that the amounts so derived were secured 
at the expense of anxiety as to the future of the city and vexation 
resulting from the complications into which the speculative proposi- 
tions of the association fell shortly after their inception. Litigation 
involving these titles continued for many years, and under various 
decrees of the court sales were made which have been assumed to be 
comprehensive of the properties in which Greenleaf, Morris, and 
Nicholson had any title. There is, however, a considerable list of 
lots as to which the record of sale is incomplete, although all of them 
at different times seem to have been involved m court proceedings 
and made subject to the action of trustees duly appointed. The 
United States conducted proceedings against the heirs of Greenleaf, 
and secured a decree from which it probably reaped all the financial 
benefit which it will ever secure out of the balance which might be 
stated in its' favor by a complete review of the Morris and Nicholson 
account. The lots now appearing as having been involved in tnese 
transactions without a complete final clearance of the title are in- 
cluded in the following list: 



Square No. 266, 20 lots. 
Square No. 268, lots 6-8. 
Square No. 387, lots 21-58. 
Square No. 435, lots 13-18. 
Square No. 465, lot 82. 

468, lots 6, 7, 15, 19, 26-28. 

469, lot 33. 
498, lots 3-11, 13-15, 17, 25- 



Square No. 
Square No. 
Square No. 

32. 
Square No. 



502, lot 71. 



Square No. 503, lots 38 and 44. 

Square No. 591, 15 lots. 

West of No. 597, lots 1-6. 

Square No. 681, lot 16. 

Square No. 787, lot 12. 

Square No. 898, lots 1-3, 7-10, 16. 

Square No. 921, lot 2. 

Square No. 941, lot 1. 

Square No. 945, lot 6. 



While it is possible that there may be some equitable interest of the 
United States in these lots that was never satisfied, the possibility of 
realizing anything on such an equity is extremely remote and not 
much more tangible as an asset than many of the claims of ownership 
which are made by private persons to large tracts in the original city 
The probable outcome of a complete prosecution of 



of Washington 



40 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

this matter is the addition of further naked legal titles to the number of 
those now in the United States and which seem desirable to be disposed 
of by quitclaim or court decree as soon as practicable. The only 
interest in further study and litigation under these claims would be 
that of private persons who would thus have their titles cleared up. 

In addition to this consideration, the fact is also to be taken into 
account that in the case of the majority of the lots included in the 
above list the Congress has already directed the release of any claims 
of the United States, such direction being included in the act of March 
3, 1899. The repeal of this act has been recommended but has not 
been effected, and if it continues on the statute book the holders of a 
majority of these lots have only to exercise the right which has been 
conferred by statute to completely divest the United States of any 
interest whatever. 

As it would involve a considerable expenditure to investigate the 
Morris and Nicholson transactions so as to be able to make positive 
statements as to the condition of the titles of the lots in the above- 
named 'list and as the result would probably be of no financial 
benefit to the United States, it seems advisable finally to report upon 
this list with the statement that the record title of the lots included 
is not found to be complete, but that the interest of the Uinted States 
therein, if any, is so inconsiderable that further action with reference 
to these titles in the way of investigation and assertion of rights is 
inexpedient. 

For the benefit of the private persons holding under these incom- 
plete titles, which may be found by them at a later date to be a source 
of embarrassment and possibly of serious loss, the commission in 
its recommendations to Congress for legislation has included a pro- 
vision for dealing with these cases which it strongly recommends to 
be enacted into law. 

It is proposed to simplify proceedings in dealing with these titles 
by conferring broad, equitable jurisdiction on the Supreme Court of 
the District of Columbia and to make it possible either for the United 
States or for a private party to invoke the aid of the court in deter- 
mining doubtful questions or for the purpose of completing a doubtful 
record title. Such a source of relief in this particular class of cases 
seems to be desirable m view of the necessity which exists for the repeal 
of the act of March 3, 1899, referred to below, and the method of relief 
now proposed seems preferable to the plan previously followed of 
directing releases in bulk without individual examination or oppor- 
tunity for judicial decision. 

The act of March 3, 1899, which affects a large portion of the lots 
enumerated in the foregoing list is improvident in that it covers 
not merely the cases in which by some defect of the record title the 
United States has only a nominal interest or in which the interest 
of the United States is minute or merely supposititious, but it dis- 
poses without provision for a return to the United States of lands 
to which the Federal Government has the equitable title and the 
right ci possession. Therefore, it seems desirable that this law 
should be repealed, and the commission has recommended the 
means above stated for the protection of bona fide private interests, 
leaving the United States in a position to assert its actual rights 
and to recover from illegal occupants the lands of which the United 
States has been deprived. 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 41 

CONVEYANCES IN UNDIVIDED SQUARES. 

No evidence of division between the public and the original pro- 
prietors has been found with reference to squares 825, 1025, south 
of 1025, 1048, and 1049, but the United States has parted with a 
portion or the whole of its interests in these squares under the follow- 
ing circumstances: 

Square No. 825. — This square was derived from William Prout's 
land, and that proprietor and his heirs leased and sold lots in the square 
from an early period. There is no record of authority for doing this 
and no evidence of the conveyance of the rights of the United States 
in this square except the action of the Secretary of War with refer- 
ence to different parcels, which has previously been stated. The com- 
mission recommends with reference to the remainder of the square 
still vested in the United States that the act of March 3, 1899, should 
be repealed and the question of the proper payment for the rights 
of the United States should be referred to the Supreme Court of the 
District of Columbia for adjudication under the terms of the pro- 
posed legislation which have previously been stated. 

Square No. 1025. — No formal agreement of division with George 
Walker, the original proprietor of this square, has been found. There 
is a copy of a proposed division sheet giving all of this square to the 
United States and action was taken along this line, as the whole 
square was sold November 6, 1844 to James T. Barclay for $640.88. 
(Liber W. B., 118, p. 73.) This sale makes the consideration of the 
defective division record unnecessary, as the United States has dis- 
posed of all its interest in this square. 

Square south of No. 1025. — There is no form of division sheet for 
this square, and a plat of the square on file with the division sheet 
bears the indorsement "Not on record." A division was made by 
order of court August 8, 1877, and recorded in division book J. H. K., 
page 171, office of the surveyor of the District of Columbia. The 
United States had, however, previously disposed of its interest in 
this square, as on January 22, 1868, the Chief of Engineers had con- 
veyed the square to O. O. Howard (liber E. C. E., No. 26, f. 336.) 
This deed makes further consideration relative to the original divi- 
sion unnecessary. 

Square No. 1148. — This square was included in part at least in the 
property of Elizabeth Wheeler, a widow, who was insane, and with 
whom no full account was stated or complete division made. There 
is no record of the disposition of the land in this square on division, 
but the United States sold lots 1, 2, and 3, and it seems reasonable 
to construe this action as an acceptance of this amount of land in 
lieu of the interest of the United States on division in this square. 
Lots 1 and 2 were sold to John P. Ingle, trustee of the vestry of Wash- 
ington Parish, August 7, .1851 (liber J. A. S., 31, f. 329), and lot 3 
was sold October 29, 1802, to Nathaniel Cutter (liber I, f. 53). The 
square is now a portion of the Congressional Cemetery, and the title 
is in the vestry of Christ Church. There seems to be no reason to 
report any substantial outstanding interest of the United States in 
this square. 

Square No. 1149. — The United States under the circumstances, 
stated with reference to square No. 1148, sold four lots in this square, 
lots 1, 2, and 3, to John P. Ingle for the vestry of Washington parish, 



42 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



August 7, 1851 (liber J. A. S., 31, p. 329), and lot 4 to Nathaniel Cutter, 
October 29, 1802 (liber I, folio 53). The conclusion reached as to 
square No. 1148 seems also to apply to square No. 1149, and there 



S(Q>HI&miE If?M© 



Jforih N Street 




^ S40JO 

**> 




1 
«9 


U0AO ^ 

«5 


« 8 

£40*10 




23 <o 

46ftl0 


9S.U 

74 * 

















29.U J 


i 
i 


3 

dfc/i 


saw 


74 


S2 


s 


5 




4 

Si.»J 


1 


I -5 


— £ 


3 

itM 


22 


52 



Afcrtfi ^f 5fcraje 



appears to be no ground for reporting any substantial interest of 
the United States in this square. 

PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES. 

After examination of all the records which can be found relating to 
the sales of lots in the original city of Washington, and the elimination 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



43 



of merely nominal titles, there remain the parcels given in the follow- 
ing list, of which the United States seems still to be the owner, 
although not in possession of the property: 



Part of square No. 2. 

Square No. 3. 

West of square No. 9. 

Square No. 116, lot 4. 

Square No. 153, part of lot 8. 

Square No. 447, lot 20. 

Square south of No. 612. 

Square south of No. 613. 

Square south of No. 667, lots 7, 8, 9, and 

12. 
Part of square south of No. 708. 



Square No. 825, part of. 

Square No. 965, parts of lots 5 and 6. 

Square No. 983, lots 1-4. 

Square No. 996, part of lot 9. 

Part of square south of No. 1001. 

Square No. 1041, lot 2. 

South of square No. 1048. 

North of square No. 1053. 

South of square No. 1080. 

Square No. 1113, lots 2, 3, and 4. 



In addition to this list, the United States owns property identified 
subsequently to the original plan of the city as squares No. 803 and 
south of No. 771, together with a large amount of land formed by 
filling in on the water front, including tracts south of squares Nos. 
955 and south of 1001, and south and east of the two definite loca- 
tions of Water Street along the Eastern Branch. There is also a con- 
siderable amount of water front property belonging to the United 
States along the Potomac Kiver and Rock Creek fronts north of 
Potomac Park. 

The greater proportion of the property given in the foregoing list 
is involved in the assertion of the rights of the United States to the 
water front of the original city of Washington. The property 
remaining in the United States but not involved in the questions 
arising on the water front is as follows : 

Square No. 116, Lot 4- See plot page 42. — This lot was originally 
assigned to James M. Lingan, but in the settlement of his account 
January 1, 1808, he transferred certain lots to the public in order to 
balance the account, and the agreement vesting the title of these lots 
in the United States, including lot 4, square No. 116, is recorded in 
liber I, folio 19. No record has been found of the conveyance of lot 
No. 4. It is included in the list of lots belonging to the United States 
made up in 1822 and again in another list made up in 1849, and in 
1867 was included in the list of lots ordered to be sold. In 1853, 
however, it was the subject of a transfer between private persons, and 
there is some record of private claim to this lot, but this claim seems 
to have been consistently denied by the superintendent of the city, 
who insisted on payment for lot 20 in the same square, in which 
the circumstances were similar. This lot, with a small portion of lot 
3, has been subdivided into sublots 62 and 63, which are assessed as 
follows : 



Sublot. 



62. 
63. 



Square 
feet. 



2,800 
2,891 



Land 
value. 



$2,806 
2,891 



Improve- 
ments. 



$1,200 
1,200 



Assessed to — 



Cecilia Holland and others. 
Do. 



44 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



Square No. 153, lot 8.— g 

The circumstances relative to the title to this square are detailed 
in the former report. No further evidence has been secured, and the 
only claim of title which has been advanced is based on a partially 
erased entry indicating the sale of the lot to John Templeman. Noth- 
ing appears in the accounts of the commissioners to substantiate this 
claim, and the whole title of the lot seems to be in the United States, 



83 



71 



CO 



PLAN SHOWING DIVISION OF 
LOT 8, SQ.NQI53. 



North S Street 



101.2' 



46 I 47 48 

! No T 



22 5" fr^ 



- 61.6' 
i 









50 
HI 



51! 
lie | |/j 



l 

i 
i 
i 
i 

t 

52 



1 



A 



53 



■ 

i 

8 



45 





No|8 

43' i 42 



41 

too 



4o: 

101 



12 ft. Alley 

t 



! ! I ! ! 



30 as 



i/a* [ tea \ 






Mfra 




Scale ; I in. ■ 30 ft. 

Heavy broken lines inclosing re-sub 112 and re-sub 114 show portions recently alienated. 

except as to the portions included in sublots 112 and 114, which have 
been conveyed by the action of the Secretary of War, as previously 
stated. Apparently no action can be taken with reference to this lot 
so long as the act of March 3, 1899, remains in force, and the rights 
of the United States in the balance of the lots are subject to con- 
veyance at any time under the terms of this act. The property not 
conveyed is now assessed as follows : 



TITLE OP THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



45 



Square. 


Sublot. 


Square 

feet. 


Land 
value. 


Improve- 
ments. 


Name assessed. 


153 


102 

103 
104 
111 
113 


1,674 

1,674 
1,674 
1,833 
1,833 


$1,674 

1,674 
1,674 


$2, 800 

2,800 
2,800 


Annie E., Maud, and May 


153 


Schneider. 
Do. 


153 


Samuel J. Spearing. 


153 


1,833 ! 3,300 
1,833 3.300 


Samuel H. Rogers. 


153 


Lunsford G. Orndorff. 











Square No. U7 , lot 20 — 

The circumstances relative to this lot have also been reported upon. 
An intention to convey the property to St. Vincent's Orphan Asylum 
seems to be indicated in an instrument of conveyance of a number of 



Lot 20, So. Nq 447 



116 c\. 






Part, of Sub 31. Assessed to LOirts Behrens St. Vincent's 
Orphan Asylum to Wrn. King. King To Louis Behrens. ' 



Sab. 32 

Same as above 



Assessed to Kate Hoyberger 
St Vincents to John Iseman 

Iseman to Jacob Ruple. trustee 
Ruple to Kate Hoyberger 



Assessed to Oeo.C.Groener. St.Vincenfs To John iseman. Iseman to Q.Barfter.5 



Assessed To Geo.C.Groener. St. Vincents To Qulnfen BarKer c 
Heirs of BarKer to Geo C.Groener 1 1 feet front. * 



"•* 

*~ 

to u 
to 4) 
'-L 

§W 

^£ 

°£ 

to 




116 ft. 



Scale i in- =» is ft. 






other lots, but the title to this lot did not pass. The property is 
subject to action under the act of March 3, 1899, and would have to 
be conveyed by the Secretary of War upon compliance with the 
terms of that act. 

The lot is now carried on the assessment books as follows: 



Of sublot— 


Square 
feet. 


Land 
value. 


Improve- 
ments. 


Assessed to — 


31 


712 

2,320 
2,552 
1,276 


$569. 60 
1,856.00 
2, 042. 00 
1,021.00 


$1,500.00 

1,900.00 

1, 600. 00 

700. 00 


Louis Behrens. 


32 


Do. 


22 feet next the north 27 feet 


Kate Hoyberger. 
George C Groener. 


South 11 feet 





46 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



Square south of No. 667, lots 7, 8, 9 and 12. — 

These lots are also affected by the act of March 3, 1899, and subject 
to conveyance, although the United States has never received any 
consideration therefor. One of the lots is needed for the purpose of 
improvement of the Anacostia River, and the effect of the above-named 

StJUAHE S.O-F Xf?B6f 



South V Street 



•fY 



£ 






136 



© 



O 






S» 



13 6 



4 



as "27 

8l74T""3# 



2j 



4 



7 06 r> ! ? 
= j«~. 



6.Y6 



*< 73B| 2/ 

«*£ 8 .?; 

*V ' 66.1 ni 
» 



131. 



9 -I • 



.•^^i '•' 



.-.Jt&®i * 




Souih IT Srrcei 

statute would be to deprive the United States of property for which it 
has immediate use and for which in case of conveyance, as provided by 
law, it would be required to pay a consideration to the person to whom 
the land had been conveyed without consideration. These lots were 
originally selected by James Greenleaf and intended by him to be 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



47 



retained for his own use. He protested vigorously against resale by 
the commissioners under the law, but his protests were ignored and 
the commissioners sold the lots on August 29, 1797. At this time 
William Cranch purchased them apparently for Greenleaf s interest. 
This retention by Greenleaf was only temporary, as the commissioners 
resold the lots again January 27, 1798, to Isaac Block. 

Apparently Greenleaf was able to induce Polock not to complete the 
purchase, as the notes which he gave for the purchase price were 
withdrawn and lots 7, 8, and 9 were resold to James Barry, November 
12, 1799, and lot 12 was sold to Samuel Blodget on the same date. 
Immediately after the sale the commissioners were served with an 
injunction on behalf of Greenleaf against the sale (Commissioners' 
Proceedings, 1798-1800, p. 257), and the purchasers apparently never 
attempted to complete the transaction. No further action seems to 
have been taken with reference to the proceedings in which the injunc- 
tion was issued, and lot 13, which was included in the above transac- 
tions, was retained by the United States until June 10,. 1867, when 
it was sold to Charles Just. (R. M. H. 27, f . 227.) There seems to be 
no valid title outstanding against the United States to lots 7, 8, 9, and 
12, but the disposition made by the act of March 3, 1899, only awaits 
the action of the beneficiaries to be completed. These lots are now 
assessed as follows: 



Lot. 


Square 
feet. 


Land 
value. 


Improve- 
ments. 


Assessed to — 


7 


2,714 
2,446 
6,307 
3,556 


$109 

98 

252 

142 




Henry Norton. 


8 




Do. 


9 


$1,000 


Do. 


12 


Claudius B. Jewell. 









Square No. 825. — 

The portions of the plan of fhis square on page 48 inclosed in 
heavy broken lines have recently been alienated by the United States. 
The lots bordered by crosshatching were formerly disposed of and the 
lots not inclosed as above are still in the United States. (See previous 
paragraphs as to this square.) 

Square No. 965, 'parts of lots 5 and 6. — 

According to the commissioners' records, these lots were among 
those which were to be sold by Kilty and King, trustees in the 
Greenleaf litigation. No conveyance has been found, and the fact 
that occupants of portions of these lots have been compelled to com- 
plete title by application to the Secretary of War under the terms of 
the act of March 3, 1899, indicates the proper status of the remainders 
of the lots to be as property of the United States, although subject 
to alienation under the terms of the above act. The portions of the 
original lots 5 and 6 which remain in the United States with the 
current assessment are as follows: 



Sublot. 


Land. 


Improve- 
ments. 


Assessed to — 


16 


$883 
883 

1,009 
905 


$1,200 
1,200 

2,100 
1,800 


Henry Walter. 
Frederick Heinrich and 


17 


48 


Louise Reckeweg. 
Wm. T Peake. 


Of sub 49, 20 feet front on Tenth Street 


Emma L. Carrico. 







Total, land and improvements, $9,980. 



48 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



Square No. 996, part of lot 9. — 

As previously noted, the east 25 feet of this lot has recently been 
quitclaimed to the occupant. The title to the west 25 feet seems to 
be still in the United States, although subject to action under the 
act of March 3, 1899. It is assessed to George W. Talbert. 

Square No. 1041, lot 2.— 

This lot reverted to the United States by the decree in Groenveldt v. 

SQUARE N<? 825. 



mxtih K Street 



s.sewcrti Cisseu 

Land 1325 sq.ft. 6 199 

fclOO, Trans, as hejr\ 
ori q,frons.0ct.6.l89 & 










John R. Adams , 
Land 3600 sq.ft. $72Q. 
No improvements (Garden) 
Transferred : Feb. 24, 1897. 



m 



John R.Adams 

Land;8460 sq.ft., $ IZ6SL*,. , 

Imp-. ZVz story house, ftatf 

brick, bait wood. (94.25 ft. front) " 
Assessed 1883-4. 



James H Jones . Land :_Zt06 
sq.ft.. $316. Imp. Double two 
story brick, house S6O0. 
In general assess. I8T2-3. 

00 



Same as above 
Assessed to Adams 1083-4. 



« Charles E.Worthingtol??t«fi«[ 1445 s^.ft. 

_ $2ii. Imp. two fttory bnck Hougo © 



3 



« Chorlco E. WorNiinqfon , Land 1445 s^il _71 
* $211. Improve Wintet Two st'j br> hwat £■ 
-© tnta?) frSOO. TryntJerrtdt June 8. 18&*. ^' 



Chartso E.WarOilrcqton , Land I4"*3c^.f?. 
$<?if. Improvements-, two «* j br'k house 
ft) inter) t9GC. Transferred : April 23 I 6SS 
tr Chcrfae E.Worthinatcr*, Land ISC5 silf 
5 *2J5. Improiramerifs t tcrp *^j brll hc«A.oe « 
2xj.ituw> |900. Tron»<crPcd: April 2d,ie»&. *5J 



t« 55lsi 



69 v - 

oi"S 



; -o w 
^3c<n 
d . <u 
<2r9 w 






B 

- E c« 

C o o 

o . «» * 



£6 



IS. 00 







OJ5 ti -) » 



* The front measurement here given is .67 ft more than the description calls tor. 
1" The depth of this lot is .50 ft. more than called (or by description. 

South L Street 



Greenleaf (Chancery Rules, 3, No. 1), and it does not appear that it has 
subsequently been conveyed. The lot is apparently the property of 
the United States, but is subject to alienation under terms of the act 
of March 3, 1899. It is now assessed to James F. Hood. 

Square north of No. 1053 and square No. 983. — As to the former 
square, there appears to be no doubt that the interest of the United 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



49 



States has never been divested. The record in the partition suit of 
the heirs of Abraham Young (Annapolis Chancery Records, December 
term, 1800, p. 498) states that lots 1-4 in square 983 were " given to 



i 



SUBDIVISION or 
LOTS 5 AND 6 , SO. No 965. 

North B Street 



CQ 

W 

o 



57 91' 



No. 7 



57 95' 



No. 8 




to 



No. 6 



100-86' 



37.95 



25 9<o 



17 



W 





No. 5 

^Marie Oirouard 'w 1 



IOG-86 



fr 



o 



J 



r 



the commissioners to balance the account. " While the investigation 
as to these two squares has not been completed, there seems to be a 

52069— S. Kept. 907, 62-2 4 



50 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



substantial interest if not the entire right in this property vested in 
the United States. 

Square No. 1113, lots 2, 3, and 4.— These lots were assigned to the 
United States by the agreement in the case of Groenveldt v. Greenleaf 
(Chancery Rules 3, No. 1). There is no evidence that they have ever 
been conveyed and they are also affected by the act of March 3, 1899. 
Lots 5 and 6 in this square, acquired by the United States by the 
above decree, have been conveyed by the action of the Secretary of 

Square 996, Lot 9. 







*t7 © 


47 




■0,-7 




■47 


47 © 






fc 


si 

tn 



x± 


OH 

si 

in 



17 




b 




M 

s 
in 



17 *> 


in 



NJ 
1/1 



« 

-* 



! 


SI 


IP 




£= A. O 

101 






is 

1 

-tf. 


b 







4 «"• 








fc !•»-«,' 




> 


in 




J7j.ur 




Mur 


IT 


S 




to 


1-fo* 




lr l«-6' 








b 


N> 








id 
ft 



s 











1 

5 


<S 
i/» 

— 




30 


4 


0) 
N 


t 


•3 


Mi.. 


N 
In 




— 
is) 




in _ 

b ™ • 


»1 

Vrt 



i 
^ 


^ 


\ 


\ 


.7i • 




A 7 o 




470 


47o 







o. 



/p-r//. sr/?££T, f/isr 



Portion of lot 9 conveyed indicated by dotted line. 



War, as stated in previous reports. The lots in this square in which 
the United States still retains ownership are assessed as follows : 



Lot. 


Square 
feet. 


Land 
value. 


Improve- 
ments. 


Assessed to — 


2 


7,234 

9,253 

11,271 


$506 
648 
789 




Julia F. Cole. 


3 




Galen E. Green. 


4 r ... 




Frank D. Or me. 









TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



51 



OTHER REVERTED LOTS. 



In addition to the foregoing there are eight lots which were involved 
in the transactions with Greenleaf, Morris, and Nicholson and in 
which the United States seems to have some substantial interest. 
These lots are: 



Square No. 1012, lot 2. 
Square No. 1036, lots 6 and 11. 



Square No. 835, lot 7. 

Square No. 836, lot 12. 

Square No. 965, lots 2, 7, and 8. 

As already reported, the title of lots 5 and 6, of square 965, showing 
similar circumstances to the titles of these lots, has been held to be in 
the United States. The records seem to show that Thomas Monroe, 
the superintendent of the city, took over titles of these lots as a part 
of the recoveries made by the United States in the case of United 
States v. Schwartz et al. 

Lot 12, of square No. 836, was advertised for sale at different 
times as property of the United States, and sales book No. 6, page 



SQ1TAKE 571041. 
South C Street 



80 

12 



11 

ICib 



es 
" 13 

zi a 

40 



10 
lift 



10 



9 

10.S 



8 



5 1 

o 

80 



IT 



6i 

14 



65 
15 



30 feet 



10 



6 



6b 



es 




JL-K-JL..1 



South JD Street 



389, contains an entry of the sale of this lot at auction November 8, 
1852, to Col. Thomas, for $79.80. There is no credit in ledger 8, 
page 183, where the payments from the sale of the above date were 
carried, of the payment of this amount and no deed has been found 
of record for the lot, although completed transactions have been 
shown for lots 11 and 13, in the same square, which reverted to the 
United States under the same circumstances. All of the above- 
named lots are subject to alienation under the act of March 3, 1899, 
and while that act remains in force there probably can be no asser- 
tion of the right of the United States to these lots. Should the act 
of March 3, 1899, be repealed the questions involved should be 
referred to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for deci- 
sion under the broad equity jurisdiction proposed in the legislation 
recommended by the commission. 



52 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 



CORRECTIONS OF FORMER REPORTS. 

Square west of No. 13, reported on page 37, Senate Document 632 
(61st Cong., 2d sess.), as being in possession of the United States, 
was found on further examination to have been conveyed by the 
United States to John Glasco (liber AI-34, p. 195) and Charles C. 
Jones (liber AQ-41, p. 394). This conveyance was of the amount of 
land in existence at the time the city was laid out and does not 
affect the rights of the United States in the soil underlying Rock 
Creek, if this stream is determined to have been navigable at this 
point. The assessment showing possession by the United States has 
been changed, and the lot is now assessed to private owners. 

Square No. 803. — Reported as in the possession of the United States 
on page 38 of Senate Document No. 632. It was found, on examina- 
tion, that this square was in the adverse possession of private persons. 
The situation was called to the attention of the Commissioners of the 







10 o 



100 



SQITAHJ8 isrvaus 







South V Street 



District of Columbia, under whose jurisdiction the property is placed 
by law, and steps were taken to assert the rights of the United States. 
Questions arising out of the title of this property are now pending 
in the courts. 



RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES ALONG THE WATER FRONT. 

From the time of the preliminary work of this investigation up to 
the date of the present report increasing emphasis has been given 
by all the facts collected to the extent and importance of the rights 
of the United States to lands on the water front of the city of Wash- 
ington now in private possession or claimed by private persons. 

By the naval appropriation act approved June 24, 1910, the Sec- 
retary of the Navy was directed to enter into a contract with the 
Pennsvlvania Railroad Co. for the location of a spur track to the 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 53 

navy 3^ard along the shore of the Anacostia River from the company's 
location on the property known as square south of 1080. It seems 
to have been assumed at the time the bill was passed that this track 
would pass over private property for at least a portion of its length. 
This commission, however, being convinced that the land referred to 
was rightful property of the Government, called the attention of the 
Secretary of the Navy to its information, and as a result that official 
declined the proposition of private parties to transfer their alleged 
rights covering this land to the United States for the sum of approx- 
imately $160,000. As the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. was led by the 
threats of these private persons so offering to sell to refuse to enter 
into a contract for the construction of the track, the Attorney Gen- 
eral of the United States brought a bill in equity praying relief from 
the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against the attacks of 
these private parties on the title of the United States and their inter- 
ference with the proposed contract between the United States and 
the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. 

The very important improvement is proposed of a connection 
between the Rock Creek and Potomac Park systems by a roadway 
along the course of Rock Creek. The claims of the United States to 
land west of Twenty-seventh and Twenty-eighth Streets have been 
stated in a previous report, but it has been assumed that the water 
front of the city of Washington on Rock Creek terminated at K 
Street, being the northern limit of the basin of the Chesapeake & 
Ohio Canal. Its investigations as to the frontage of the city on Rock 
Creek, however, leads this commission to believe that when the city 
was laid out the navigable portion of the stream extended as far as 
P Street, where there was a dam belonging to a paper mill, and that 
any artificial filling on Rock Creek has created land belonging to the 
United States exactly as the artificial land created along the Potomac 
and Anacostia water fronts is Federal property. The original com- 
missioners treated squares as far north as square No. 23 and west of 
No. 23, as composed of water-front lots, and the recognition of navi- 
gation along Rock Creek as far as P Street seems to be shown. 

During the present session of the Congress a proposition has been 
submitted involving the assignment of the water front in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia along the Anacostia River from the Anacostia 
Bridge northward to the District line for the purposes of a boule- 
vard and park. The suggestion having been made that the terri- 
tory affected should be acquired under condemnation proceedings, 
this commission called the attention of the officials interested to the 
fact that it appeared that there was much property of the United 
States in this territory subject to adverse claims of private persons, 
and that the method proposed for the steps preliminary to the 
improvement might be disadvantageous to the interests of the United 
States. 

The questions involved are those relating to the rights of the 
United States along the Anacostia River within the limits of the 
original city of Washington and also those relating to the rights 
which accrued to the United States in the bed of the Anacostia 
River between the prolongation of the northern line of the city of 
Washington and the northern line of the District of Columbia. 

In view of the urgency of determining the question of the title 
of the land affected by the proposed improvement, a draft of the 



54 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

legislation formerly proposed by the commission as affecting only 
the water fronts of the Anacostia River, Potomac River, and Rock 
Creek was submitted to the Congress and passed, becoming a law 
on April 27, 1912. (Public, No. 138.) This act directs the Attorney 
General to bring proceedings in the Supreme Court of the District 
of Columbia to quiet the title of the United States to any lands 
along the water fronts named which may be affected by the adverse 
claims of persons or corporations. 

Under the provisions of this law the Attorney General has directed 
suits to be brought to quiet title to the land required for the branch 
track to the navy yard, and the balance of the land between the navy 
yard and the almshouse reservation, which is required for the purposes 
of the Anacostia River improvements. 

The Attorney General has directed suits to determine the title of 
lands known as square 803, and south of square 771 ; and to clear the 
title of the United States to lands in which the United States is shown 
by the investigations of the commission to have interests located 
along the Anacosta River between St. James Creek and square 771. 

Another suit has been directed to be brought by the Attorney Gen- 
eral to quiet the title of the United States to lands on the Potomac 
River and Rock Creek between the north line of Potomac Park and 
the south line of K Street; and another to clear the title of the United 
States to lands along Rock Creek between K Street and P Street. 

As soon as practicable similar action to the foregoing will be taken 
with reference to the shores of the Anacostia River north of the north 
line of the city of Washington and between that boundary and the 
northern line of the District of Columbia. 

It having appeared in connection with the improvements carried 
on under the local office of the Engineer Corps of the United States 
Army, and from other considerations, that there is probably some 
amount of land belonging to the United States and properly located 
within the District of Columbia situated on the south side of the 
Potomac River opposite the city of Washington, the exact status of 
the said southern shore is being carefully inquired into with a view 
of bringing proceedings under the act of April 27, 1912, to establish 
the title of the United States in that vicinity. 

The following photographs show portions of the land created by 
filling on the beds of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and Rock 
Creek. 

The first is of the land immediately east of the navy yard and the 
line of posts marks the location of the river bank of the Anacostia 
River in 1791, as shown by maps and plans of that date. The made 
land at this point extends southward — that is, as shown in the picture, 
to the left, for more than 200 feet. 

The second photograph looks northeastwardly along the bed of 
Water Street near reservation 298, the delimiting posts of which are 
shown in the picture. To the southward, which is to the right in this 
picture, there is the property of the United States consisting of Water 
Street of a width of 80 feet and the adjacent river front which at this 
point is about 100 feet wide, and which is a portion of the proposed 
location of the track to the navy yard. 

The third picture is a view looking southwestwardly from the 
reservation, above referred to, to the Anacostia Bridge. This con- 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 55 

siderable and very valuable piece of water front seems certainly to 
belong to the United States, although claims are made of private 
ownership. 

The fourth photograph shows the filling on the bed of Rock Creek 
north of N Street. The dumping at this point seems to have en- 
croached on the bed of Rock Creek with a border of made land which 
rises several feet above the grade of the city streets and lots to the 
eastward. 

The fifth photograph shows the encroachment on Twenty-seventh 
Street west and the land between that street and the river. All of 
this land appears to be property of the United States, but it is being 
occupied and used by private persons. 

LANDS IN POSSESSION OF THE PUBLIC. 

The commission to investigate the title of the United States to 
lands in the District of Columbia is required by law (35 Stat. L. ; 543) 
to investigate — 

The title of the United States in and to all lands in the District of Columbia, with a 
view to protecting such title, filing a map of said lands, and ascertaining whether or 
not any individual or corporation is without proper authority occupying in whole or 
in part any such lands. 

Upon the completion of the work of examining the transactions in 
the original city of Washington — work which involved the examina- 
tion of the title to several thousand lots — the commission took up 
the work of comparing the land now devoted to public uses with the 
various evidences of title to be found in the public records. It was 
found that no system had ever been adopted for the registration of 
public lands in the District of Columbia, but that the evidence with 
regard to the ownership of such lands was widely scattered and in 
some cases the details of the method of acquirement and the facts as 
to area, and present jurisdiction, offered problems requiring consid- 
erable research and, in some cases, adjustment of conflicting records. 
The work of checking up the public land in the District of Columbia 
with accuracy is now going on and the commission will be able on its 
completion to present to the Congress a statement as to the original 
acquisition of the land, its area, its present use, and the jurisdiction 
under which it is administered. It has been the custom to segregate 
the evidences of title among the different executive departments 
taking jurisdiction over public property, so that no record has been 
kept at one point of all the property acquired. 

Far more confusing than this fact, however, is the condition result- 
ing from the fact that the property accruing to the United States by 
virtue of the original cession and as a result in the changes of the forms 
of municipal government within the District of Columbia has never 
been the subject of careful scrutiny and record. Thus, the records 
of the assessor of the District of Columbia omit a large number of 
pieces of property derived from the original transactions in the city of 
Washington. The records of the office of Public Buildings and 
Grounds include only the original reservations and such tracts of 
subsequently acquired land as may have been specifically designated 
for park purposes. The information possessed by each of the offices 



56 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

having public land records is more or less fragmentary, and a com- 
plete and satisfactory list can only be secured by going over the entire 
District, section by section, carefully collating the data available, 
and making actual measurements in the numerous cases where 
approximate areas have been carried on official records for years 
without the necessity arising for a careful comparison with the actual 
amount of land in existence. 

Moreover, it will be necessary, in order to comply with the require- 
ments of the statute, to include not only the property used for the 
purpose of the Federal Government but the property used for munic- 
ipal purposes as well. Fundamentally considered, the United States 
has the underlying title to all public property in the District of 
Columbia. Certain of this property has been retained by the Federal 
Government for its uses. The use of other property has been trans- 
ferred to the municipal government of the District for municipal pur- 
poses, including the streets of the original city of Washington, to all 
but a few of which the United States has title in fee simple. Outside 
of the city of Washington the Federal Government has certain 
properties used for Federal purposes and has certain interests in roads 
and streets which were acquired by the levy court of the county of 
Yfashington prior to the consolidation of the entire District under 
one municipal government. The government of the District of 
Columbia has acquired in its own name property and easements for 
municipal purposes, paid for either exclusively from the revenues of 
the District or in part from the revenues of the United States. This 
property includes streets, parks, and sites of buildings used for munici- 
pal purposes. Properly to assign ownership and jurisdiction in these 
various properties is a task requiring care and patience and may also 
require the action of the Congress when all the questions involved 
have been carefully considered. 

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION. 

Bills formulating the views of the commission as to desirable legisla- 
tion have been introduced from time to time by the members of the 
commission who are or have been chairmen respectively of the 
Senate and House Committees on Public Buildings and ^Grounds. 
It seems desirable at this time to review all the proposed legislation 
which has been recommended by the commission which has not been 
enacted into law. 

Future disposition of property of the United States in the District of 
Columbia. — The first recommendation of the commission, made in 
1909, was that no sale or other disposition of public lands in the 
District of Columbia should be made except under the terms of a 
special act of Congress. The following language was submitted to 
the Congress at that time, and the recommendation is now renewed 
that an act be passed substantially in the following terms: 

That no sale or other disposition of public land in the District of Columbia shall be 
made except under the terms of a special act of Congress. Provision for such sale 
or any disposition or abandonment of title of the United States shall not in any case be 
included in appropriation or other general acts, and all bills introduced for the dis- 

Eosition of any right, title, or interest of the United States to real property in the 
•istrict of Columbia shall be submitted to the Attorney General for his investigation 
and report before passage. 



TITLE OP THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 57 

Repeal of previous acts. — By several acts which are now seen to be 
improvident, disposition has previously been made of valuable prop- 
erty rights of the United States. Nonaction on the part of the 
intended beneficiaries and the terms of the act which established this 
commission make it possible to protect the interests of the United 
States in the residue not actually conveyed under the terms of law, 
and the commission strongly recommends the repeal of the following 
portions of acts: 

Act approved March 3, 1899 (U. S. Stat. L., vol. 30, p. 1346, c. 
433, sec. 2). 

Sec. 2. That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to 
correct the records of the War Department in respect to any of the lots mentioned 
in Senate Document No. 277, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session (being a letter 
from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in compliance with the resolution of the 
Senate of January 27, 1898, a letter from the Chief of Engineers, together with a list 
of lots in the city of Washington, D. C, the title to which the records of his office 
show to be in the United States and list of lots in the city of Washington, D. C, which 
are shown by the records of his office to have been donated by the United States), 
upon the filing by an actual occupant of any of the lots mentioned in said document 
sufficient proof that the said occupant or the party under whom he claims has been in 
actual possession of the said lot or lots for an uninterrupted period of twenty years, 
so that the said records shall show the title to said lots to be in the said occupant. 

Act approved March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. L., p. 1237): 

Sec 13. That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed 
to convey to the purchaser from the United States of square eleven hundred and thirty- 
one, and the south part of square eleven hundred and seventeen, and the squares 
south of squares eleven hundred and twenty-three, eleven hundred and forty-eight, 
and eleven hundred and forty-nine, in the city of Washington, all the interest of the 
United States in the land lying south of the squares so purchased and between them 
and the channel of the Anacostia River, upon the payment by such purchaser into the 
Treasury of the United States of such sum of money as the said Secretary of War, upon 
consideration of all the circumstances, shall determine proper to be paid for the said 
land; and the surveyor of the District of Columbia is hereby authorized and directed 
to mark out such land and determine the acres and to record a plat thereof. 

Bills are now pending before the Congress for the repeal of both of 
the paragraphs of law above cited. The repeal of section 2 of the 
act approved March 3, 1899, is provided for in S. 1899 and H. R. 
5610, Sixty-second Congress, second session, and the repeal of section 
13 of the act approved March 2, 1907, is provided for in S. 6688, 
Sixty-second Congress, second session. The passage of repeal legis- 
lation in both these cases at the present session of the Congress is 
recommended. 

Completing^ doubtful titles and quieting title of the United States. — 
The legislation effected on recommendation of the commission 
to provide a means to quiet title of the United States to lands 
along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and Rock Creek (act ap- 
proved Apr. 27, 1912, public, No. 138) provides for only a portion of 
the cases in which there are doubtful titles to be cleared and interests 
of the United States to be protected. To meet the conditions arising 
from the status of titles in the original city of Washington which are 
stated in this report further legislation seems necessary, and the 
commission recommends that the following jurisdictional provisions 
be enacted: 

That for the purpose of final determination of all questions of title arising out of the 
division and sale of lands situated in the original city of Washington, in which an 



58 TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 

existing interest of the United States prevents final adjudication under the provisions 
of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia, and in which jurisdiction is not con- 
ferred by existing law, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting as a court 
of equity, shall have full power and jurisdiction by its decree to determine every 
question of right, title, interest, or claim arising in the premises. 

Sec. 2. Proceedings under the jurisdiction conferred in section 1 hereof may be 
initiated on bill of complaint by the Attorney General of the United States, or by or 
on behalf of any natural person or corporation, setting forth under oath a bona fide 
claim under color of title, and the course of said proceedings shall be in accordance with 
the provisions of the act approved April 27, 1912, entitled "An act providing for the 
protection of the interests of the United States in lands and waters comprising any 
part of the Potomac River, the Anacostia River or Eastern Branch, and Rock Creek, 
and lands adjacent thereto." 

APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES. 

As far as can now be foreseen, the commission has sufficient funds 
for the completion of its work in a satisfactory manner, especially as 
the installation of a new photographic device in the Department of 
Justice, of which the commission has the use, has been found to be of 
considerable assistance in the work of compiling information, and 
will, it is believed, materially decrease the cost of the final report of 
the commission. 

The appropriations and expenditures to June 1, 1912, are as 
follows : 

Statement of appropriations and expenditures. 

Balance of appropriations June 1, 1910 $7, 654. 63 

Appropriation, sundry civil act appropriation June 25, 1910 10, 000. 00 

17, 654. 63 

EXPENDITURES. 

H. C. Gauss, from June 1, 1910, to June 1, 1912, at $3,500 per 
annum $7, 000. 00 

R. F. McElfresh, from June 1, 1910, to Oct. 29, 1910 413. 90 

Grace N. Kingston, services in November and December, 

1910 127.50 

Jessie M. Aldrich, from Dec. 21, 1910, to June 1, 1912, at 

$900 per annum 1, 300. 00 



8,841.40 



Office expenses: 

1910. July, Yawman & Erbe, filing cases and supplies 66. 35 

Traveling expenses, H. C. Gauss 13. 90 

November, District of Columbia, special survey 100. 00 

Traveling expenses, H. C. Gauss 5. 50 

1911. July, paper for mounting division sheets 1. 98 

August, Earl G. Marsh, surveying, computing, and 

map drawing 75. 00 

October, photographic supplies 4. 87 

November, Globe- Wernicke Co., filing cases 47. 12 

1912. January, Underwood typewriter and computing ma- 

chine combined 296. 00 

February, R. P. Andrews Paper Co., paper 2. 25 

March, R. P. Andrews Paper Co., paper 9. 28 

March, Chas. G. Stott Co., binders 3. 80 



626. 05 



TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS. 59 

Printing, transfers to account of Public Printer: 

Dec. 29, 1908 $18.00 

May 28, 1909 8. 62 

Aug. 23, 1910 3. 84 

$30. 46 



9, 497. 91 



Balance of appropriation 8, 156. 72 

Respectfully submitted. 

Geo. W. Wickersham, 

Attorney General, Chairman. 

Henry L. Stimson, 

Secretary of War, Member. 
Geo. Sutherland, 
Chairman Committee on Public Buildings 
and Grounds, United States Senate, Member. 
John L. Burnett, 
Acting Chairman Committee on Public Buildings 

and Grounds, House of Representatives, Member. 
Cuno H. Rudolph, 
President Board, of Commissioners 
of the District of Columbia, Member. 

o 



Senate Report No. 907, 62-2. 




OCCUPATION OF TWENTY-SEVENTH STREET AND ADJACENT LAND. 






LB N '12 



<k* 



